W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

RE: [sw-meaning] Agenda & Logistics for Tomorrow's Telecon

From: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:35:23 -0500
Message-ID: <D3C8F903E7CC024C9DA6D900A60725D9025F3516@DLTKVMX1.ads.deltek.com>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-sw-meaning@w3.org>

I would like to propose to agree to use the term "connotation" to refer 
to those aspects of the semantics of URIs and SW languages that fall 
outside the model theory.  From 
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=connotation the definition of
connotation includes:
...
2.a. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: 
...
2.b. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal 
meaning. 
3. Logic. The set of attributes constituting the meaning of a term; 
intension. 

I'm using the term in the sense of 2.a. and 2.b.  I'm not familiar enough 
with the literature of logic to know whether the meaning at 3. would be 
too distracting to render this term useless in this discussion, but 
assuming it is not, here is how this term would be used.

1. It presents a simple dichotomy between formal semantics, whereby
we compute the denotation of graphs, and non-formal semantics, where 
we consider the connotation of graphs.  Consensus D. proposed below 
can be thought of in these terms.  That is, we could agree that the 
two must for now be kept entirely separate and distinct, and for now,
the connotations of a graph barely touched on.

2. The definition emphasizes associations, which bring to mind linking, 
which is fundamental to the workings of the web.

3. It both brings back a little status to those aspects of not-formal 
semantics that have been used in W3C recommendations up to now, and, on
the other hand, it suggests that these association semantics are not the 
daunting "...large research topic." suggested in the current 
RDF Semantics working draft. 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030905/#intro 
In fact, the connotations of an RDF graph can be very structured, even 
computable, as the Dingo running example shows, and very interesting.
This is true of the current web, also, with its spiders and search 
robots, that makes much interesting information out of the structures 
and patterns of associations in the web, even without a formal model 
theory.

4. It can be used to describe the terms and propositions which the 
internet and web communities currently agree to (more or less), in 
the sense of Consensus B and C., about the what the web is and how it 
should work.  So we can talk about the connotations of a graph to a 
reasonable webmaster.  This is what I thought Tim was getting at when 
he asked Bijan what he would deduce from:

	:ancestor rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty

I think it would have been better if Tim asked, "What are the 
connotations of this string to you?"  This avoids conflating the 
formal interpretation of denotation and computation of entailments 
with the informal considerations of associative semantics.  A 
reasonable webmaster might have responded as expected by saying, 
Well, the connotations of this statement are revealed by noting 
the prefixes 'rdf' and 'owl' and, using the conventions of the
WWW, looking up those namespaces on the web.

5. Its shorter and more accurate than "social meaning".  I Think 
it also effectively covers some of the sense expressed in the 
proposed consensus B. as "...the surrounding words and the 
nonlinguistic context of the conversation,..." with a single 
term, connotation.

John Black



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:01 PM
> To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> Subject: [sw-meaning] Agenda & Logistics for Tomorrow's Telecon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>              SW-Meaning Meeting (Agenda and Logistics)
>          http://www.w3.org/2003/09/meaning/agenda-2003-10-31
>      IRC log to appear http://www.w3.org/2003/10/31-sw-meaning-irc
> 
> 
> Time and Location
> =================
> 
>    11:30am - 1:00pm US/Boston Friday, October 31, 2003
>    2003-10-31T16:30Z for P1H30M
>    
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=31&mo
> nth=10&year=2003&hour=11&min=30&sec=0&p1=43
> 
>    No physical location.
> 
>    Telephone: W3C Zakim Bridge, conference code 7966 ("SWMN")
>    tel:+1-617-761-6200;postdial=7966
>    Bridge instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
> 
>    IRC: W3C IRC server, channel #sw-meaning, as telecon interface
>    and for notes, floor control, etc
>    irc://irc.w3.org:6665/sw-meaning
>    IRC Bot Instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent
> 
> Participants
> ============
> 
>   invited:
>      People familiar with the issues and willing to devote some time
>      and energy to helping solve them.  Please introduce yourself to 
>      the list as per 
>         
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep/0006
>      before attending.
> 
>   expected:
>      Sandro Hawke, chair
>      Mike Dean, scribe
>      (no specific committment asked for or received from anyone else)
> 
> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 
> 
> A.  Administrative (15 min)
> 
>     1.  Public notes for this meeting will be taken on IRC
>         To appear at http://www.w3.org/2003/10/31-sw-meaning-irc
> 
>     2.  Confirm scribe (Mike Dean)
> 
>     3.  Record attendance
> 
>     4.  Review and approve records of last meeting
> 
>         PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2003/10/10-sw-meaning-irc
> 	as a true record of the last meeting.
> 
>     5.  Future meetings
> 
>         PROPOSED: Meet at this same time in 14 Nov, 28 Nov, 
> and 12 Dec.
> 
>     6.  Review this Agenda
>         
> B.  Possible Consensus, Message Oct/0092 (25 min)
> 
>     [ This may be an issue where most of us are in agreement with Pat,
>       and it would be good to record and refine that agreement.  Can
>       we reconcile this with the RFC 2396 and the TAG's current
>       language? ]
>    
>     Pat Hayes writes:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0092
> 
>         Words convey meaning to us humans, and we all use them to
>         convey meanings to others. But this works, often enough and
>         well enough to be useful, not because the meanings that the
>         words have for speaker, and those that they have for the
>         hearer, are *identical*, still less that there is a single
>         unique such meaning; but rather because the people involved
>         have enough of an overlap in their conceptions that the hearer
>         is able, using the surrounding words and the nonlinguistic
>         context of the conversation, to extract enough of the
>         speaker's intended meaning for the communicative purpose which
>         happens to be relevant at the time. 
> 
>     and
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0093
> 
>         > How is a URI different from a constant?        (James Lynn)
> 
>         For these discussions, not a lot. RFC 2396 insists 
> that any URI 
>         "identifies" a unique resource, but it provides no 
> way for a resource 
>         to be baptized by a URI, and a name that isn't 
> attached to any 
>         referent is hardly distinguishable from a constant 
> symbol that isn't 
>         a name.
> 
>     Discussion, Straw Poll, Proposed Revisions, Relevance, Volunteers
>     to Edit/Maintain some text on this...
> 
> C.  Possible Consensus, Message Oct/0084 (25 min)
> 
>     Dan Connolly writes:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0084
> 
>         A URI has meaning to the extent that there's consensus in the
>         Internet Community about what it means, as expressed 
> in Internet
>         protocol messages, especially messages that express a
>         relationship between a URI and a representation of 
> what it means;
>         and that the HTTP/DNS case is, while very common, a 
> special case
>         where the Web Community has delegated authority to 
> one party (and
>         that delegation has limits, as we see in the Verisign 
> SiteFinder
>         case). 
> 
>     Discussion, Straw Poll, Proposed Revisions, Relevance, Volunteers
>     to Edit/Maintain some text on this...
> 
> D.  Possible Consensus, Message Oct/0107-1 (25 min)
> 
>     [ It looks like there's a thread of consensus here about how the
>       Semantic Web could consist of "conventional ontologies" which
>       happen to be on the web, using some improved Imports mechanism.
>       This may not be very interesting or sufficient for the long
>       term, but can we agree it's a viable approach, and define our
>       scope in relation to it? ]
> 
>     Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0107
> 
>         As far as I am concerned, owl:imports is sufficient.  However,
>         OWL going to REC doesn't solve everyone's problems.  In
>         particular, RDF is left without an importing mechanism. 
> 
>     Pat Hayes writes:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0108
> 
>         [This] reduces the SWeb to conventional ontologies which
>         happen to be on the Web, which may well be useful but isnt the
>         vision of the SW that gets me excited. 
> 
>         On the other hand, since our primary task is to produce some
>         words, I think that it is important not to say anything which
>         would be *inconsistent* with the
>         conventional-ontologies-on-the-Web view, since that is where
>         the immediate industrial applications are. 
> 
>     Bijan Parsia writes:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Oct/0109
> 
>         I think adding more explicit (and more, explicit) import
>         controls would be useful.
> 
>     Discussion, Straw Poll, Proposed Revisions, Relevance, Volunteers
>     to Edit/Maintain some text on this...
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 09:35:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT