ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Jim Rhyne" <jrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 08:00:00 -0800
Message-id: <000001ca78e8$ad23c9b0$076b5d10$@com>
"Meaning" is an ambiguous term, even to logicians who have several,
non-equivalent ways to define it.    (01)

The fallacy in this discussion is that several parties are using different
senses of the term "meaning". Bill asks the presumed rhetorical question -
"Meaning" is a human phenomenon - isn't it? But this question is not at all
rhetorical. Meaning in much human discourse has a lot of what linguistics
have called "pragmatic" content, and this content differs from person to
person and situation to situation, even when a single utterance is the
source of the interpretation.    (02)

The real discussion is whether there are situations in human-human and
human-machine interaction where richness in pragmatic content and semantic
variability are undesirable. I believe that there are such situations:
emergency communications, legal contracts, and factual scientific
communications to name a few. And, I believe that formal ontologies are
appropriate for use in these situations. I do not believe that an ontology
is helpful in communicating with my teenage sons.    (03)

Thanks, Jim    (04)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Burkett,
William [USA]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:51 AM
To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators    (05)

Ed:    (06)

I agree with you that:    (07)

>The underlying concern here is that all of the social communications 
>cues are utterly absent in a formal ontology.      (08)

But the following:    (09)

>It means exactly what it says and only what it says.      (010)

Does not make sense without considering (at least a limited) social setting.
The ontology means absolutely nothing if there is no human (or his/her
software surrogate) to interpret it.  "Meaning" is a human phenomenon -
isn't it?  (Okay: sentient phenomenon - my cat correctly interprets (i.e.,
derives meaning from) my actions when I pick up his food dish, but I doubt
he's worried about ontologies.)    (011)

Bill    (012)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (013)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (014)

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