Re: [ontolog-forum] Distinction between ontology and semantics (Was: Re:

["Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>]

Phil,

 

Sure, there is a very clear connection, as you might guess.

 

Most simply, ontology is the study of what there is in the world, i.e., the furniture of the world, referents. Semantics is about how one refers to the things of the world using language, i.e., what is the meaning of the linguistic (semiotic) forms you use to pick out and talk about things.

 

There are more formal definitions and distinctions, e.g., the formal semantics of languages (natural and formal languages, including logics).

 

And ontology as being “a logical theory about some portion of the world”, as a working definition for our “Little O” ontologies in ontological engineering, a definition which is also a candidate for “Big O” philosophical ontology, for some. 

 

But the relationship between ontology and logic is not necessarily straightforward, e.g., see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/. If you reduce ontology to logic (or vice  versa), useful distinctions are lost.

 

Similarly, if you conflate ontology with semantics, useful distinctions are lost. See, e.g., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/. Or reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/.

 

Metaphysics is typically the area in which one sorts out the distinctions among ontology, semantics, logic, etc. Sure, it gets abstract and sometimes obtuse, but general awareness helps prevent you from naively promoting a statement or position that’s been argued against for a hundred years.

 

Typically, in our day-to-day working lives, in ontological engineering (ontologies as engineering products), we tend to lump ontology and semantics together, and often it’s harmless: e.g., we talk about “semantic technologies” as including formal ontologies.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

 

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Murray
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:50 AM
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Distinction between ontology and semantics (Was: Re: More by and about Turing)

 

Dr. Obrst --

In this post, you warn against conflating ontology and semantics, but if you define an ontology as a "logical theory about some portion of the world" and semantics as "the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for" (Wikipedia, "Semantics"), there certainly seems to be a lot of overlap.

Could you provide more a more precise statement of the important differences? Or is it simply a matter of ontology being a more formal approach with its own practices, technologies, and objectives?

Thanks,

     Phil Murray (not a KR professional)

Obrst, Leo J. wrote:

John,

Any human-specified "universal" (foundational) ontology has to follow reality (which exists independently of our ontological speculation, if you are a realist). This is why science and ontology are partners. Phlogiston theory flamed out as other science developed, but who knows: it may come back some day. Reality doesn't change; our descriptions/theories do. Theories are logical/mathematical descriptions of reality (though there may be other avenues at arriving at reality, if you tolerate religion and poetry, though these are probably less computable, at least currently), and as such, are or should be modifiable. One of our definitions of an ontology is that it is a logical theory about some portion of the world. 

Metaphysics, from which philosophical ontology springs, is useful as a body of discriminating thought/reasoning, that helps you filter nonsense, provides guidance as you look at the world and the possible/probable things in it. This is why metaphysics is necessary. It helps you cut the crap. It too constantly evolves. Because it is tethered even farther from direct reality than is ontology, sometimes it's considered useless -- an erroneous view, to me. For one example: think of how many folks conflate ontology with semantics.

Thanks,

Leo

-----Original Message-----

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-

bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa

Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:36 PM

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] More by and about Turing

On 7/17/2015 5:05 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:

Glad to see Turing was a nascent poet.

Andrew Hodges, the author of that article about Turing, is

a mathematical physicist.  Among the issues he addresses are

Turing's comments about computability over the integers and

the real numbers.  Those questions are significant for any

computational ontology about space-time and the universe.

Hodges notes that Turing was (and still is) ahead of his time

in thinking about those problems.  That poem hints at them.

Hodges' also cites a web site about the *amplituhedron* :

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-

physics/

Implications for formal ontology:

Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that

dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions

and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental

components of reality.

"This is completely new and very much simpler than anything

that has been done before," said Andrew Hodges, a mathematical

physicist at Oxford University who has been following the work.

"The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling," said Jacob Bourjaily,

a theoretical physicist at Harvard University. "You can easily do,

on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer."

This is just one of many, many reasons why I'm highly skeptical

about any proposals for a universal foundation ontology.  A new

discovery can pop up at any time that completely revolutionizes

and *obsoletes* any supposedly "ideal" foundation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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)