RE: some notes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 12:56 PM
> To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: some notes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:
> > 
> >>Dictionary definitions are not really definitions in any 
> foundational
> > 
> > sense:
> > 
> >>they are kind of sketches of a meaning which themselves rely on the
> >>same connected web of shared knowledge (some of it about language
> >>itself) which they set out to explain. URIs don't have this
> >>surrounding context of shared beliefs and so on; and in any case,
> >>URIs are not NL words.
> > 
> > 
> > I disagree. Although dictionary definitions do not reflect 
> the same rigor as
> > a mathematical definition, they certainly provide enough 
> definition to allow
> > a "common usage" According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/ a
> > pharmaceutical is defined as a medicinal drug. So even 
> without context, I
> > should be able to glean enough knowledge to know that using the word
> > 'pharmaceutical' could be used to refer to an aspirin, but 
> not to my dog.
> 
> Sure, _if_ you already know that an aspirin is "medicinal" and that a 
> dog is not.  There's part of your context.  

To me, context refers to how the word is used in a sentence, in a paragraph,
etc. But you're right, definitions will rely on other words, which rely on
definitions using other words, and that is a system similar to what you
describe as follows...

> Or look up a word that fits 
> right in with logic/ai/etc - "proof".  Wordnet gives 6 noun 
> senses for 
> "proof", one of which relates to the alchohol content of beverages. 
> Which one should I use right here and now?  It depends on the 
> context of 
> the conversation.

That's the advantage URI's (should) have over NL, you use a different
"spelling" for each meaning.

> 
> 
> > While I certainly do't claim that if we had enough "URI 
> dictionaries" we
> > could avoid all misuse, abuse, and disagreement, I can't 
> help but think that
> > it would be beneficial to have registries play an authority 
> role (perhaps
> > more descriptive than prescriptive). As someone else 
> already stated, isn't
> > the difference between words and URI's (simply viewed as 
> tokens for the
> > moment) that while a NL word may have different meanings 
> represented by the
> > same string (token), we insist that URI's reflect the 
> different meanings by
> > assigning different strings to each meaning...not so 
> different from what is
> > used in referencing dictionaries as in pharmaceutical[1], 
> pharmaceutical[2].
> > 
> 
> That is presuming that you can in fact define any one of those 
> "meanings" in a clear and definite way that is completely 
> independent of 
> any context.  That is not likely to be possible.  Consider the legal 
> profession.  Part of the business of being a lawyer is to 
> craft language 
> that is so precise in its meaning that it cannot be 
> misunderstood, yet a 
> large number of court cases serve mainly to determine the effective 
> meaning of legal terms and documents.  The precise legal 
> "meaning" of a 
> word or phrase is determined primarily by years and centuries 
> of court 
> decisions.
> 
> So how can you ever expect to precisely define an invariant 
> meaning to 
> thousands and millions of URIs?
> 
> > I also disagree that 
> > 
> > 
> >>NL takes ages to build up meaning through usage,
> > 
> > 
> > Certainly language as a whole has taken ages to reach its 
> present state, but
> > new words pop into common usage overnite, btw. OK, maybe 
> one shouldn't
> > consider 'btw' a word, but there are plenty examples that 
> are, not all from
> > the internet/web either. If a group of KB engineers start 
> using some URI
> > '.../theNewFoo', it will quickly assume some meaning among 
> that group and
> > any who have a need to converse with that group regarding theNewFoo.
> 
> Right - if you want to converse with that group you had best 
> use words 
> in a way similar to the way they will hear them.  Context again.

I don't see this so much as context, at least in the grammatical sense, but
as agreement.
 
> What is the slang meaning of the word "cool", or "wicked" (as used in 
> New England), or "bad"?  What is the meaning of "boot" as 
> used in Denver 
> and "boot" as used in England?  What is the meaning of 

Just a consideration: why can't I just say that  "http://www.w3.org" means
the entire W3C? Would this encourage use that would promote untrue
assertions? You might say that it is too ambiguous, (the organization, the
website, the authority?)I would just reply "use a more specific URI". Use
"http://www.w3.org" when you want generality as in "The W3C gets things
done."

Cheers,
James

Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 13:25:48 UTC