[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators (was:Ontologydevelopm

To: <edbark@xxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "FERENC KOVACS" <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:03:00 -0000
Message-id: <DC71A4AD1F0C461CB1A78BC0FDC956BF@Swindon>
Thanks for al those very constructive comments.1.
The fact that you need domain specialists to complement the work of 
ontologists is a proof of the existence of a generic specific and abstract 
2. In semantically analyzing documents, etc.the probvlem is not the impact 
of interpersonal communication, but your knowledge of the subject (as 
represented by words, etc.  which are basically Forms )
3. There are various problems, not just ambiguities, such as incompleteness 
(e.g. elypsis), automatic correction by the mind (e.g. of the typos, etc.) 
and the expectation to see that "data" makes sense. Making sense is cetral 
to semantic analysis and it does not end in terminal symbols, but in 
4. One of the central issues is identity and continuity.  In formal analysis 
you just ignore time ans space parameters despite the fact that your 
computer cannot do that. The whole computational process is a sequence of 
translation (conversion) and not arithmetic. The only arithmetic involved 
semantically is that you MUST GIVE an ACCOUNT of your 
populations/multitudes. So tallying is the point in social applications, 
that is why numbers were invented.
5. Meaning (of anything) is insperable from contetx, which is in reverse 
proportion of the expliciteness of the Form you attribute meaning to. You 
get a menaing by Relating to that Form. If you cannot relate to it, it is 
meaningless. Your relations are indicated by words that are Verbs. Verbs 
tell you about actions, status and events whiuch are impossible to identify 
without further details (collocations, connotations) of verbs, especially 
space time parameters.
by turning a verb into a noun you make it vague immediately, not abstract.
6. There is an artificatial divide between lexical/encyclopedic knowledge 
and linguistic knowledge.This is due to the fact that people treat proper 
names as distinct from names of members of multitudes. But the difference is 
in a level of knowledge, in profiling by checking objects for more and more 
properties you get fewer and fewer candidates - and the final result is a 
spacetime parameter to locate the object. In other words it is a number 
(Form), because it is only a number that can identify an individual 
Form(Quality) and it is size (actually a Form again, which is at the same 
time quantity) that all your sorting is based on.
I do not want to take more of your time without listening to you again.
.    (01)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Barkmeyer" <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators 
(was:Ontologydevelopment method)    (02)

>> Each "content" word may be emphasized, gramamr words cannot,
>> they will not change the meaning that way. they are like nuts and bolts, 
>> So
>> it is the FOCUS that will vary meaning.
> When it comes to interpersonal communication, a great many things
> contribute to the communication.  Vocal emphasis is important when the
> interface is auditory, but facial expressions, gesture and body language
> also contribute when the interface is both auditory and visual.  Word
> ordering and turn of phrase are important, and skilled speakers and
> writers know how to use the grammar of the language to advantage in that
> area.  Context -- the situation, the roles of the participants, the
> stream of discussion -- is also important.  And all of these things
> depend to some extent on the culture of the participants, which provides
> cues for the interpretation of emphasis and physical gesture and
> grammatical arrangements and word choices.
> Ferenc's further point is that a statement taken out of context and
> devoid of communications cues is often highly ambiguous or utterly
> meaningless.  And I fully agree with that.
>> You need to know where the fpcus is in a statement.
> And much more.
>> But normally, our focus is very limited and missing in writing.
> That is simply not true.  Some communications devices are unavailable in
> writing; others are unavailable on radio.  In each case, the skilled
> communicator knows how to manipulate the medium to convey his/her intent
> effectively.  Deaf and blind people can be remarkably astute in
> interpreting all of the communication elements that are accessible to
> them.  And conversely, some fully functional individuals can be dense as
> a log in interpreting the entirety of a communications experience.
> ("She had a place in his life.  He never made her think twice. ...
> Anybody else would surely know, but the fool believes.")  Communication
> is a social process.
> The underlying concern here is that all of the social communications
> cues are utterly absent in a formal ontology.  It means exactly what it
> says and only what it says.  That is a particularly difficult medium.
> Each statement alone is likely to be unintelligible, and is meaningful
> only in a fully developed formal context that is a cohesive corpus of
> statements.  An effective ontology is such a corpus -- it is only
> through the body of statements, and supporting natural language
> documentation, that the individual statements acquire clear meaning.
> Conversely, it is the semantics of the formal language that makes the
> (limited) meaning of a statement clear, and avoids unintended overloads
> and cues that may be present in natural language text.  It is a
> different kind of communication, and it is typically intended for a
> different kind of receiver.
> That said, ontologies are made from viewpoints and model only the
> classes and relationships that are relevant to those viewpoints as
> perceived by the knowledge engineer(s) involved.  So "social prejudices"
> in the engineer(s), whether advertent or latent, may influence the
> content of an ontology.  They just don't influence the means of
> communication.
>> Old
>> grammarians believe that words are in the centre of semantic analysis, 
>> but
>> they are not.
> Words are the traditional center of semantic analysis of pure linguistic
> utterances, but the closest we can come to "pure linguistic utterances"
> is a written text corpus.  All such analytical techniques rely on a a
> notion of context that at least relates the utterances to a set of
> statements that is a corpus, and typically to a reference dictionary
> and/or thesaurus.  Some more recent work takes into account the impact
> of grammatical choices as a means of placing emphasis or steering
> interpretation.  Other work takes into account the presumed background
> knowledge of the receivers.  That said, I think words are still central
> to the analysis; the issue is how one determines what exactly was the
> intent of a use of a word.
>> they also believe that there are such things as abstract nouns
>> and conrete nouns, which is not correct either.
> I have no reason to accept this statement, and I can't imagine that any
> amount of understanding its Focus would change that, but I have never
> been much interested in metaphysical discussions.
>> Identity is Not objective and fixed and a law. Do you want me to elabrate 
>> on
>> that?
> Does it have something to do with the topic?
>> There is an abstract- concrete and generic-specific continuum which is 
>> the
>> reflection of one's knowledge or learnedness. Do you want me to go into 
>> the
>> details of that?
> Not unless it is relevant to the issue at hand.  I must say it is no
> longer clear to me what the issue at hand is.
> The "social mediation" idea seems to be about the forced loss of the
> extralinguistic communications cues in a formal ontology.  But that only
> means that the discipline for effective communication via the formal
> language is different from the disciplines of public speaking or
> expository writing in natural language.  The social prejudices of the
> knowledge engineers, based on culture, education, experience, etc., may
> still enter in to the content of the ontology.
> But I may be entirely wrong about the intended topic of discussion.
>> Shall we change the subject line?
> No.  We should rather agree on the subject that goes with the subject
> line, and strive to communicate effectively on that topic.
> -Ed
> -- 
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>