|
On 12/11/2013 7:29 PM, John Black
wrote:
Hans, John, Rich,
Recently I asserted that the sense of a word is an affordance
resulting from the execution of a process. Furthermore, I
asserted that it was common knowledge of that process
that allowed for communication with a term to exist. But now I
see that common knowledge is not what is required. In fact,
since it implies some sort of representation, which I
want to replace entirely by process, it falls into the
very error I am trying to avoid. Instead, I should have
asserted that it is the shared ownership of a common process,
combined with shared inputs to that process, among a set of
agents, that affords the utility of a term, word or URI.
JohnBlack,
"Affordance", as I read it, refers to a
resource that may be used to advantage.
"Resource" is an unspecified, abstract noun.
Entailed by the broad discussion is "shared concept" or "common
knowledge".
From that I am wondering if there is a core vocabulary and perhaps
a more complex
discussion on duality in which a particular affordance is shared
but misunderstood by one party
such as in contract discussions. We can also note that
"representations" are as models in that;
"all models are bad, some models are useful" (-George Box).
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
HP
Your points are further underscored by
the issue
of context
If the sense of a term, word or URI is some utility
afforded by a process, then there is no need for appeal to
"context". Instead, the process of making sense of a term
needs only to be able to accept inputs in addition to the
term itself. Different values for those inputs afford
different results, the same inputs gets the same results,
that's all. No context is required. When a group of agents
shares ownership of both the process and the inputs to that
process for making sense of a term, then all members of the
group are afforded a greater utility. It is an example of the
network effect. I like to think of a trending hashtag on
Twitter. These have virtually no syntax, just the semantics
that results from the shared process of making sense of it
given the inputs available to all.
HP
Of course, this is all very frustrating
to people
who want universal
interoperability and understandability - that
"universal business language
translator" mentioned somewhat tongue-in-cheek(ly)
in a classic commercial
What is remarkable, in my opinion, is how effective
languages are, be they natural, formal or some hybrid. The
difficulty of reaching perfection is dwarfed by the ubiquity
of the utility afforded by languages. And I personally am
very optimistic about creating machines that can share in the
utility afforded to those communities surrounding common terms
- when once we learn how to simulate the processes and inputs
to those processes that humans use to make sense of terms.
JS
The idea of using precise symbols and
terminology
in science and in
programming languages is useful -- but only for a
very narrow application.
The reason why natural languages are so
flexible
is that a finite vocabulary
can be adapted to an infinite range of
applications. That implies that it's
impossible (and undesirable) to force words to be
used with fixed and frozen
definitions.
RC
I don't think it will be feasible in
the next
decade to find a
universal dictionary.
I would revise that point in the following way:
It will *never* be possible or desirable to
have a fixed dictionary
of precisely defined word senses for any
natural language.
I would dispute that there is much difference between the
difficulties and utility of natural vs scientific or
programming languages. And I certainly hope you are not
implying that it is possible to have fixed
representations, definitions or precisely defined word senses
of symbols in scientific and programming languages. I don't
think it is any more than with natural languages. But instead,
here again, it is the shared ownership of a process,
and inputs to that process, that afford us the utilities of
formal languages as well. In other words, it is not how
rigidly that the sense is somehow defined or represented, but
how consistently the process and the inputs to it are
shared amongst agents, which affords formal terms a
more consistent utility.
Or so it seems to me.
John Black
_________________________________________________________________
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|