ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] LInked Data meme revisited

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:47:06 -0500
Message-id: <21C007BCC419E740AB2C82208A201554812B876B1B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,
In reference to: In fact, there is an ongoing debate in ontology:  When you 
change one axiom of a theory, the relationships among all the terms shift -- 
and therefore, the meanings of some or all the terms shift.  Which of the many 
terms have shifted in meaning?  Which one(s) require new URIs?    (01)

Isn't it worse than that? Particularly with respect to the "semantic web" and 
even in some more formal logics, there is no clear boundary of or identity for 
"a theory".  Any axiom in any resource that is accepted within the context of 
the interpreter could "shift" the meaning of any number of terms - it just 
becomes a sea of axioms. The connection between "a theory" and the physical 
resources which stand in for the boundary of a theory seem to be an informal 
convention.    (02)

-Cory Casanave    (03)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:35 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] LInked Data meme revisited
> 
> Dear Matthew, Kingsley, David, Hans, and Phil,
> 
> Since I have been talking about both natural languages and controlled natural
> languages, I confess that I may have caused some people to forget the huge
> differences between the two.
> 
> Summary:
> 
>   1. A CNL is a *formal* language with a precisely defined translation
>      to a version of logic.  Its semantics are identical to that logic.
> 
>   2. The points that Kingsley and Matthew made are true of CNLs because
>      CNLs treat words and phrases as the equivalent of URIs.
> 
>   3. But those points are *not* true of any NL.  Sometimes, a document
>      on a technical subject (such as math or science) may include some
>      sentences that are as precise as a CNL.  But they also include NL
>      commentary -- and there is no clear boundary between NL and CNL.
> 
>   4. To use Wittgenstein's terminology, the meaning of a word in any NL
>      is the totality of its uses in every possible language game in
>      which that word appears.
> 
>   5. But the meaning of a word or phrase in a CNL is deliberately
>      restricted to a single language game for a very narrow purpose.
> 
> MW
> > Words typically have multiple meanings, indeed just one meaning  is
> > rather unusual. So you need a way to pick out which meaning you  mean
> > this time  when you are using it, especially when it is out of context.
> 
> I agree, but with qualifications.
> 
> The major qualification is that there is not and can never be a complete,
> precise dictionary of all possible senses for any NL.
> 
> As Sue A. and Adam K. said, "I don't believe in word senses."
> The senses listed in any dictionary are rough groupings that are helpful
> reminders for humans.  But the meanings of words shift with nearly every use
> in every text (written or spoken).  See
> http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/Publications/1997-K-CHum-believe.pdf
> 
> KI
> > The connection between words, phrases, and HTTP URIs (which are all
> > different *kinds* of identifiers) is often lost or overlooked when
> > attempting to understand the principles outlined in Tim Berners-Lee's
> > original Linked Data meme.
> 
> I'm glad that you emphasized *kinds*.  But I want to emphasize that the
> difference is a fundamental semantic gap that no URI can bridge.
> 
> Although I sympathize with Tim B-L's goals, URIs can never convert an informal
> NL to a formal CNL.
> 
> DE
> > each & every layer of the SDLC-software development life cycle, which
> > is more aptly P(roduct)DLC, I(dea)DLC-has it's own unique impact on
> > language
> 
> That is true of *every* field.  Even in mathematics, the Idea DLC is just as
> vague, informal, and confused as any Idea DLC in Ontolog Forum.
> 
> If anyone doubts that claim, just look at the terms 'irrational number',
> 'imaginary number', and 'complex number'.  Those names reflect the long,
> heated debates in the history of the subject.
> 
> HP
> > So we have dynamism in the evolution of language and word senses, we
> > have broad variability in contexts in which the words are used, and we
> > have dynamism in the relationships of the dialog participants to each other.
> 
> I agree.  But I'd add that dynamic shifts occur even within a single peer-
> reviewed publication in science.
> 
> In fact, there is an ongoing debate in ontology:  When you change one axiom of
> a theory, the relationships among all the terms shift -- and therefore, the
> meanings of some or all the terms shift.  Which of the many terms have shifted
> in meaning?  Which one(s) require new URIs?
> 
> If you don't change the URIs, you can't claim that URIs are precise.
> But if you change them for every change to every theory, it becomes
> impossible for anyone (human or computer) to choose which URI to assign to
> any occurrence of a term.
> 
> PM
> > it is still possible to create formal representations of exchanges of
> >meaning...  Humans can internalize the meaning of those
> >representations  with sufficient accuracy to make judgments about
> >their relevance and  usefulness.
> 
> I agree that formalization can be helpful.  But even without it, people can
> "muddle through" to useful applications -- as the rapid growth in technology
> demonstrates.
> 
> PM
> > it is still possible to create formal representations of exchanges of
> > meaning...It is highly desirable to do so -- proactively...
> 
> Anybody who has spent any amount of time teaching any subject is painfully
> aware that it's impossible to anticipate the open-ended variety of possible
> interpretations of anything.  Most of them may be wrong, but some of them
> may be highly creative innovations.
> 
> KI
> > As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words; thus, I created
> > illustrations of what I am referring to with regards to...
> 
> I certainly believe in the importance of illustrations.  I use many diagrams 
>in
> my slides and articles.  But by themselves, pictures are even more ambiguous
> than words.  In response to the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" I
> always reply
> 
>     A single word can often clarify a thousand pictures.
> 
> 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
>     (04)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

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