ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:34:19 -0800
Message-id: <A2E7B666B00645F3B8764627C943F8B3@Gateway>
Dear Michael,    (01)

Gödel showed that any logical system at least as
powerful as arithmetic is necessarily conflicted;
there are true theorems that cannot be proven and
there are false theorems that cannot be refuted.      (02)

But Gödel's analysis doesn’t take into account how
individual observers have different
interpretations.  That is, Gödel used an
enumeration of logical terms to show how
incomplete FOL+arithmetic is, where no observer is
considered.  His work is mathematical in
substance.  But incompleteness is not the same as
ambiguity.      (03)

The ambiguity of language, and therefore of
linguistically expressed concepts, is outside of
the mathematics Gödel used.  Instead, it is about
how humans construe signs and attach their
individual personal meanings (i.e., a plurality of
associations of the sign with their personal
experience base).  So there is really no simple
mapping of Gödel's work to the ambiguity of
language.      (04)

In effect, Gödel showed that, given a single
observer (supposedly objective and universal in
her language mappings and trained in mathematical
logic), even the single observer has an incomplete
grasp of proofs based on FOL+arithmetic.      (05)

But unlike Gödel's enumerative proof structures,
linguistic ambiguity is based on the fact that
MULTIPLE observers differ within a group as to
their assignment of meanings to signs.  This is
because each observer has unique experiences, even
different from her twin's.  As a result, even
individual observers of language usage must
process ambiguous signs uttered by other observers
to be able to communicate with said other
observers.      (06)

HTH,
-Rich    (07)

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (08)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Michael Brunnbauer
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:03 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and
Knowledge Engineering    (09)


Hello Rich,    (010)

I am just saying that URIs are less ambiguous than
words. They are still
ambiguous of course but that is also true for most
formal systems as we know
from Gödel.    (011)

Regards,    (012)

Michael Brunnbauer    (013)

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:49:26AM -0800, Rich
Cooper wrote:
> Dear Michael,
> 
>  
> 
> The second reference, which is a tad long,
states,
> among other things:
> 
>  
> 
> Access is dependent on architecture. It is
> precisely by providing a space of names for
access
> that Web architecture is useful. In order to be
> useful, access should be unambiguous. In
contrast,
> reference to natural entities is inherently
> ambiguous. In this manner, reference on the Web
is
> the same as reference off the Web. This is
simply
> obvious. The Web is a transport mechanism for
> (what are in the REST sense) representations
such
> as web pages. What a representation represents,
> and how the names in it refer, has nothing
> particularly to do with how the representations
> are transported. In the words of Korzybsky, “the
> map is not the territory” (1931). Web
architecture
> does not determine what any names, including
URIs,
> refer to. It only determines what they access.
> 
>  
> 
> I think that description succinctly captures the
> utopian vision of “meaning” that is so often
> misrepresented as in the SW descriptions.  URIs
> can only hold one file, and that file is, as he
> says, “inherently ambiguous” because the web is
> all about language, and language is inherently
> unambiguous.  
> 
>  
> 
> The SemWeb, much of the ontology work, and most
of
> what passes for semantics technology, is
actually
> Peirce’s “sign”, containing no meaning at all.
> Meaning is in the mind of the interpreter who
> reads the material and assigns only her personal
> meaning.  There is no objective “meaning” by
> definition.  What you mean by a sign is very,
very
> personal.  
> 
>  
> 
> -Rich
> 
>  
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Rich Cooper
> 
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> 
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of Michael Brunnbauer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:31 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum] 
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and
> Knowledge Engineering
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Hello Rich,
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:03:20AM -0800, Rich
> Cooper wrote:
> 
> > When a URI references a "definition" of a
term,
> 
> > there is still a huge gap between whatever is
> 
> > stored as the "definition" and what the
average
> 
> > person of skill in the art under discussion
> thinks
> 
> > of as "meaning" so I think David's point about
> the
> 
> > huge variability in interpretations is still
> 
> > completely valid.
> 
>  
> 
> I never implied that the semantic web defines
> exact meaning. This
> 
> is impossible and not necessary. See:
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/HayesSlides.pdf
> 
>
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/homepage/publicatio
> ns/indefenseofambiguity.html
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with John that 'the overwhelming number
of
> OWL "ontologies" published
> 
> on the WWW just take the informal info from a
> terminology, put angle brackets
> 
> around it, and call it an ontology' but I do not
> agree with him that you do
> 
> not get extra value out of this. The extra value
> lies in introducing the
> 
> informal term into a formalism where the context
> of every term is clear which
> 
> is not true of natural languages where one word
> can have several completely
> 
> different meanings depending on context.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Michael Brunnbauer
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> 
> ++  netEstate GmbH
> 
> ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> 
> ++  81379 München
> 
> ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> 
> ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
> 
> ++  E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> 
> ++
> 
> ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452
(Handelsregister
> B München)
> 
> ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> 
> ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz
> Brunnbauer
> 
> ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
> 
>  
> 
>
__________________________________________________
> _______________
> 
> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> 
> Config Subscr:
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/  
> 
> 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?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
> 
>  
>     (014)

>  
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/  
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>      (015)

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister
B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz
Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel    (016)

__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/  
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J    (017)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (018)

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