Rob - (01)
On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Rob Freeman wrote: (02)
> [RF] Fundamentally at fault I believe is the idea that names for
> things are
> worth arguing about. Abandon that and even using everyday language you
> can usually find something to agree on. (03)
Please to explain what you mean by "names for things are worth arguing
about" (04)
Somewhat simplistically I observe two ends of a language spectrum... (05)
at one end is "real" language such as we attempt to use here for
(hopefully)
intelligent discourse. (06)
An article in the New York Times would be another example... written
with
the explicit intent to be professionally edited and to be read by a
wide &
diverse audience. (07)
At the other end of the language spectrum is technical or professional
jargon such as: EDP, ADP, EAM, MIS, IT, IS, the cloud (& I presume
others). (08)
Almost none of this language is edited professionally since it is not
meant
to be read by any sort of audience beyond a few (hopefully) professional
analysts or programmers who can understand this particular form of
language (e.g. Fortran, Jovial, SNOBOL, Java, Python, Ruby, COBOL, JCL,
ETC, CICS, DB2, SQL, RDF, OWL, & so forth). (09)
One of the distinguishing characteristics of such language environments
is that virtually all of the context has been been removed. (010)
Whereas in real language I'll go with George Miller's (creator of
WordNet)
guess a typical word has on average about 10 meanings, in the
spectrum of
unreal language, the prototype dictionary I built has an average of 35
meanings per term. (011)
In 2006 "cc" was the winner with 298 meanings. Today "cc" has 400+
meanings. (012)
In the realm of unreal language the odds of guessing the correct MEANING
of a term/word/label is essentially indistinguishable from zero. (3%
precisely) (013)
It's not that I wish to ARGUE about names, I want some mechanism (other
than my heading off on multiple wild goose chases) that TELLS me what
some
term means in the context where I've found it. (014)
When there were SMEs (subject matter experts) available, that's who
I'd ask.
But we're clearly on a path that takes us away from having SMEs
available.
Too expensive. (015)
> [RF] We just need to agree to stop arguing about language. When you
> really
> don't understand a request for clarification will usually suffice. (016)
And to whom do I direct this request for clarification? (017)
Ask Google? Google doesn't have access to the internal programming
documents in a company. Plus the documents in a company are so
statistically
thin, that the brute force word counting technique that serves Google
so well in
the outside world, simply will not work inside an organization. (018)
___________________
David Eddy
deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (019)
781-455-0949 (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|