John, (01)
I beg to differ. It is not just about how we name things; it is about how we
know what is being named.
A useful taxonomy is based on well-defined properties. So the capabilities of
the chosen syntax make a difference. Can you phrase: "An X is a Y that does
(or does not) have property P" in the syntax you choose? Alternatively, can
you phrase: For all X's, sentence S1 (about X's) is true?. These are the
established structures for formal definition. Ultimately, there must be some
terms that are "primitive", in that we can't define them formally in terms of
other concepts or axioms. But if all or most of your terms are primitive, no
one can be really sure what any of them mean. (02)
I think it is quite reasonable to consider whether you want to use someone
else's formal (e.g., RDF) term for something that the source defines loosely in
English from his/her particular point of view. You have to determine that the
definition is unambiguous, in terms of the definitions of the English words
used and the syntactic (and pragmatic) context of their use. Then you have to
determine whether that is exactly what you mean for your particular purposes. (03)
For example, suppose we define the IRI http://mydictionary.com#food as
"anything people eat". Why "people"? (Why do we call it "dog food" -- is that
a misnomer?) Which people did the author have in mind? Does that include
grasshoppers? Does it include grass? Do you really want to use his term,
thereby implying that anything anyone says about ...#food is consistent with
what you say about ...#food? That is the problem. (04)
The ISO TC37 "terminology" folk would say that agreement to use a set of terms
consistently creates a "speech community" who have a "shared understanding" of
the meaning of the terms, insofar as they are used within that community. So
"reuse" is a property of terms WITHIN a community. The problem with RDF (and
the Semantic Web in general) is that construction/development of those
communities is left as an undefined social exercise. (05)
Doug's point is that it is very difficult in RDF (mostly impossible) to say
what you do and do not mean by ...#food. As a consequence, it is very risky
for me to assume that what you mean and what I mean are (exactly) the same,
unless there is some community of use that I know we both belong to (and we
keep out, disparage, vilify the riffraff who misuse OUR terms). There are
some thriving speech communities using RDF, but their vocabularies are not very
large, because the language itself doesn't much help in creating the shared
understanding. OWL is more expressive than RDF, and you can write (some)
formal definitions and axioms in OWL, but it takes real dedication to do that
wherever possible and get it right. So, OWL has a combination of RDF-like
communities, who formalized the terms and develop the common understanding by
informal means, and a few communities whose terms are rigorously defined, and a
few communities who aspire to the latter and are still learning how to do it. (06)
The point is that these "reuse" communities arise by choosing a language
(syntax) and a set of practices that they all agree to be comfortable with.
The shared understanding is the "content", but the means of expression is part
of the shared practice that begets and maintains the shared understanding. You
can separate content from syntax in your own head, but you cannot separate
content from syntax when you communicate with others. Syntax, of some kind(s),
is critical to creating the "shared understanding" of a term. (07)
-Ed (08)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800 (09)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (010)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John McClure
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:04 PM
> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> On 1/22/2014 10:47 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
> <snip/>
> >> "Reuse" was the promise; empirically it has not been delivered - why not?
> > Because it was expressed in RDF.
> Let's not confuse format with content.
>
> Ontologies = Individuals + Class taxonomies + Property taxonomies
>
> > If you hate CycL, pick another format. -- doug
> Format is not the issue. It is how we name things.
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
|