John: I understand your point that a "term" in a formal language (e.g.,
ontology) should have a single, unique definition - this allows automated
processors to (soundly) do something with statements in the language. (01)
It is important to point out, however, that this requirement addresses a very
small set of users "out there in web-land" - less than 1% I would guess. The
"semantic web" will never materialize with this requirement because, simply, a
very very large percentage of data-creators don't have the understanding and
won't devote the time/rigor required to create these semantically precise
statements. Most will create their schemas and ontologies and create their
data using their natural language skills/capabilities/facilities - leading to
multiple and evolving meanings. So, realistically, except for a very small
population, "terms" that are used to name things in web-land *will* have
multiple meanings. We can exclude those undisciplined cases and operate in
our own small, rigorous, well-defined world - but how useful will that really
be? (Like everything in AI, it seems, it'll be useful in special cases, but
not in general.) (02)
As I write this, it brings the question of scope to my mind: in our discussions
here are we ONLY interested in talking about formal ontologies with
precisely-defined semantics that can soundly reasoned over, or are we talking
about the "semantic web" (or "semantic enterprises") in general where,
presumably, we can evolve to a point where processors can do something will all
the data "out there in web-land"? (03)
Bill (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:04 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture -
Interoperability? (05)
David and Doug, (06)
DF>> a Semantic Web needs ontologies of terms with fixed meanings (07)
DE> Is this saying that a term (word, phrase, acronym, abbreviation,
> whatever) can only have a single meaning? (08)
We must always distinguish the names of relations and instances
in any formal language from the words in any natural language
that is being mapped to that formal language. (09)
DF used the word 'term' for the symbols in some formal language.
Those symbols should have unique definitions. (010)
DE was talking about the words used in some NL that is being
mapped to the symbols of some formal language. (011)
The names used in the formalism should never be identified
with the words in the NL -- even when their spelling happens
to be similar. (012)
John (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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|