On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Burkett, William [USA] wrote: (01)
> 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. (02)
John didn't say this, however. Which is just as well, since it is wrong in
several ways. First, formal language terms need not have single definitions.
Most of them have no actual definition at all. Second, having a definition is
not necessary in order for automated processors to usefully do something with
them. (03)
>
> 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. (04)
Indeed they will not, and nothing in the current SWeb vision or deployed
technology requires them to do so. So we can all stop worrying about this
particular issue, fortunately. (05)
> 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. (06)
Indeed they will. They already do, in fact. (07)
> 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.) (08)
>
> 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 (09)
Lets say Yes to this for the sake of argument. What has this got to do with the
previous part of your email? All of OWL/RDF satisfies this description, but
contains not a single definition. (010)
> , 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"? (011)
Do you mean for example the (roughly) four billion triples comprising the
current amount of RDF linked data? Or are you referring to something else? (012)
Pat Hayes (013)
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> -----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?
>
> David and Doug,
>
> DF>> a Semantic Web needs ontologies of terms with fixed meanings
>
> DE> Is this saying that a term (word, phrase, acronym, abbreviation,
>> whatever) can only have a single meaning?
>
> 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.
>
> DF used the word 'term' for the symbols in some formal language.
> Those symbols should have unique definitions.
>
> DE was talking about the words used in some NL that is being
> mapped to the symbols of some formal language.
>
> The names used in the formalism should never be identified
> with the words in the NL -- even when their spelling happens
> to be similar.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|