Pat, John: (01)
I understand that there are many different approaches/ideas as to what
constitutes context and scope. I misspoke by implying that there would be
one such ontology. Rather, I think people should be explicit about what
definition/ontology of context they are using, and have that information
accessible somewhere on the network. Other entities on the network would
access that context ontology and the specific context values specified by
some entity on the network and determine to what extent it matches or
differs from their own context definition and attribute values. That, in
turn, would allow a determination of whether some intended interchange is
likely to be sufficiently understandable for the purposes of the interchange
(including any mappings/translations the differences entail or preclude). (02)
I realize this sounds a bit like pie in the sky, but I think this is really
the direction the long term solution to the interoperability problem needs
to take. And third party "information brokers" can improve the economic
pragmatics of making this work across the spectrum of operational domains
and organizational boundaries (as opposed to making every system be able to
do this kind of multi-domain, multi-ontology, discovery and analysis process
in transactional real time). (03)
Hans (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:21 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in battle
for the cloud (05)
Hans and Pat, (06)
I agree with both of you. (07)
HP
>> So the first order of business should be an ontology for describing
>> context and scope assumptions. (08)
PH
> And the trouble with *that* idea is, there are as many distinct
> notions of "context" as there are people saying that we need to
> describe contexts. (09)
See below for an excerpt from my book, _Knowledge Representation_. (010)
By the way, note that I start by citing (or paraphrasing) a typical
definition from a good dictionary. One of my recommendations for anybody
who is working on ontology or knowledge representation is to keep a good
dictionary handy (or better, a few good dictionaries). (011)
The definition in a typical dictionary won't be sufficiently precise to be
translated to logic. But it's a survey by a professional lexicographer
about the various ways that the word is used. (012)
That definition is not the end, but it's a good way to start the analysis.
It helps ensure that all the basics are considered and that any new
technical terms will stay within the broad range of meanings that are in
everyday use. (013)
John (014)
PS: One reason why some non-native English speakers use English more
precisely than many natives is that they use their dictionaries. But the
dictionary definition is just the *beginning* of the analysis.
_______________________________________________________________________ (015)
Source: _Knowledge Representation_ by J. F. Sowa, pp. 274-275. (016)
The word 'context' has been used with a variety of conflicting meanings in
linguistics, philosophy, and artificial intelligence. Some of the confusion
results from an ambiguity in the English word. Dictionaries list two major
senses of the word context: (017)
* The basic meaning is a section of linguistic text or discourse that
surrounds some word or phrase of interest. (018)
* The derived meaning is a nonlinguistic situation, environment, domain,
setting, background, or milieu that includes some entity, subject, or topic
of interest. (019)
> [Note: when you multiply the options in both, you get a large number,
> as Pat said. But there are some basic threads.] (020)
The word context may refer to the text, to the information contained in the
text, to the thing that the information is about, or to the possible uses of
the text, the information, or the thing itself. The ambiguity about contexts
results from which of these aspects happens to be the central focus. These
informal senses of the word suggest criteria for distinguishing the formal
functions: (021)
* Syntax. The syntactic function of context is to group, delimit, quote,
or package a section of text. (022)
* Semantics. The quoted text may describe or refer to some real or
hypothetical situation. That nonlinguistic referent is the derived meaning
of the word 'context'. (023)
* Pragmatics. The word 'interest', which occurs in both senses of the
English definition, suggests some reason or purpose for distinguishing the
section of linguistic text or nonlinguistic situation. That purpose is the
pragmatics or the reason why the text is being quoted. (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|