Ed B. wrote:
This whole discussion
suggests that this readership has significant disagreements about the
interpretation of some of the 'names' ('terms') we are using in discussing the
issue.
Yes, but the very depth and length of those
disagreements indicates that we should generalize more; users (not just us)
vary in their attraction to words. Then generalize just a little further
and we can conclude: users (not just us) vary in their attraction to
rules. The result is that users vary in which ontologies, or components
thereof, they find attractive or repugnant.
-Rich
P.S. I love your quote from John
Day!
"A picture is worth
1000 words, but it takes 10,000 words to
recover from the 500 words
that you didn't mean but people saw in the picture."
That very well summarizes the phenomenon that makes
people vary over ontologies.
-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 Barkmeyer, Edward
J
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:51 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] LInked Data meme revisited
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words;
thus, I created illustrations of
> what I am referring to with regards to relations,
participating entities, and
> denotation using different types of identifiers
(Words or HTTP URIs) [1][2].
I am reminded of a memorable quote from John Day, then of Digital Equipment Corporation, and one
of the principals in the development of the ISO Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)
Model (1978ff):
"A picture is worth 1000 words, but it takes
10,000 words to
recover from the 500 words that you didn't mean but
people saw in
the picture."
Not to quibble about Kingsley's diagrams, I think they
create as many questions as they answer. I have learned to ask those
questions, rather than assume certain answers, but others are doing that part.
>
> This is about inscription on a surface e.g., a
Web document or a piece of
> paper. I the inscriber has to give names to
things as part of the sentence
> construction process. My names may collide with
others, but such collisions
> can be reduced by the denotation mechanism I
choose.
But the names you give to those things may not help
your readers understand your intent, unless there is a 'speech community' that
shares those denotations -- they have to agree that your identifier refers to
that thing. It is common that the overall readership of interest will
share some part of your understanding of that denotation, but have not
considered, or just disagree with, some other part of your understanding.
As someone else pointed out earlier, humans are good at muddling through with a
certain amount of mismatch in their name-to-things associations, but there is
some threshold at which that mismatch interferes with the intended
communication. This whole discussion suggests that this readership has
significant disagreements about the interpretation of some of the 'names'
('terms') we are using in discussing the issue.
-Ed
>
> Links:
>
> [1] http://bit.ly/18D29GZ -- relations where
participating entities are denoted
> using HTTP URIs.
> [2] http://bit.ly/18UzaRG -- relations where the
participating entities are
> denoted using .
> [3] http://bit.ly/WAJGCp -- how and why HTTP URI
based global identifiers
> work for the Web medium.
> [4] http://bit.ly/15tk1Au -- HTTP URI duality and
denotation as exploited in
> the Linked Data realm.
>
> Kingsley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley
> > Idehen
> > Sent: 11 December 2013 15:07
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] LInked Data
meme revisited
> >
> > On 12/11/13 8:39 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> >> Dear Kingsley,
> >> I think you are missing the point I am
trying to make.
> >> Words typically have multiple meanings,
indeed just one meaning is
> >> rather unusual.
> > I am not inferring that Words have a single
meaning. I am implying
> > that Words and Phrases denote things
(entities). That's it.
> >
> > "Kingsley Idehen" (a phrase
comprised of two words) as the value of a
> > <#name> relation claims the existence
(in the claim makers mind-eye)
> > of a foaf:Person entity type associated with
the literals "Kingsley Idehen" :
> >
> > [] <#name> "Kingsley Idehen"
;
> > <#type>
foaf:Person.
> >
> > As far as I know every participant in a
relation is denoted by some
> > kind of identifier. Words and Phrases are
identifiers, as far as I know.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> > It isn't out of context. My post is about
Linked Data where the
> > context is all about HTTP URIs and entity
denotation.
> >
> >> A term has a single defined meaning
within a defined context, so you
> >> have some chance of knowing where you
are. A good way to distinguish
> >> between different possible meanings of a
word is to add words to your
> >> term to provide disambiguation.
> > That isn't what I am trying to convey in my
post. My post, as stated
> > above is simply about entity denotation
patterns across two realms:
> >
> > 1. World Wide Web
> > 2. The real-world (as some may call it)
which isn't the World Wide Web
> > where things are denoted using Words and
Phrases.
> >
> > Kingsley
> >> Regards
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley
> > Idehen
> >> Sent: 11 December 2013 13:12
> >> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] LInked Data
meme revisited
> >>
> >> On 12/11/13 7:20 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> >>> On 12/11/13 3:15 AM, Matthew West
wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Kingsley,
> >>>>> I would say "term of
one or more words" where you have used
> "word".
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Matthew
> >>> Please provide an excerpt from the
post to which your suggestion
> applies.
> >>> [MW>] You wrote on Google Plus
(link in your post below) The
> >>> connection between "Words"
and HTTP URIs (which are 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. In this post, I am
going express the essence of
> >>> the meme using using
"hyperlinked words" to aid comprehension.
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Changed to:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog:
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile:
https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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