W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2006

Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology ? and semiotics?

From: Pdm <editor@content-wire.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:41:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4475D044.7060308@content-wire.com>
To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
CC: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>, mitioke@readware.com, semantic-web@w3.org

Azamat
thanks a lot for the interesting and detailed exposition below, from 
which I learn

Maybe because I have studied with a leading semiologist ( Umberto Eco), 
but I would argue that what you refer to in parts of your definition 
below woudl be best called semiotics (science of signes and symbols) and 
not semantics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

To me semantics is the meaning of words, and semiotis is the meaning of 
non verbal communication, ie signs and symbols
Please correct me where I am wrong,

Paola Di Maio

> Ken,
> Essentially determining the nature of meaning (and significance), this 
> matter is the core issue not only for a unified computing ontology but 
> also for the machine processed semantics, the key element of the 
> semantic web. For signs (as the words of different languages) must be 
> related to concepts and ontological entities only by a many-to-one 
> relationship: from the words of natural languages (or the symbols of 
> formal ontology languages) to the concepts of the mind (the constructs 
> of knowledge machines) to the categories of ontology (the kinds of 
> things in the world). As an example, consider the class of 
> relationship, which can expressed by as many names as ‘connection’, 
> ‘association’, ‘link’, ‘reference’, ‘regard’, ‘tie’, ‘bond’; or 
> indicated by as many verbs as ‘to relate’, ‘associate’, link’, ‘link 
> up’, ‘connect’, ‘tie-in’, ‘colligate’, ‘refer’, pertain’, ‘concern’, 
> ‘bear on’, etc. Or, take the class of events expressed by as many 
> words as ‘happening’, ‘occurrence’, ‘occurrent’, ‘contingency’, 
> ‘outcome’, ‘effect’, ‘issue’, ‘upshot’, ‘result’, etc. For instance, 
> the process (event) of fire is that significance which the name 'fire' 
> has when it denotes the natural phenomenon. There is a plenty of 
> natural languages using their specific signs for this process, 
> nevertheless having always the same signification, since the concept 
> of fire is the same and the human experience is the same, regardless 
> of its numerous expressions in different natural or artificial 
> languages: 'fire', 'Feuer', 'ogon', etc..
>
> So, semantic system may be constructed as a formal semantics or as a 
> more comprehensive and consistent, real world semantics; namely:
>
> **
>
> *Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW languages, XML, 
> RDF, OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) + designation 
> rules (the semantic function from the set of language expressions into 
> the collection of constructs)*
>
> *Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system + axioms (ontological, 
> mathematical, formal logical) + designation rules + semantic 
> assumptions (the reference function from constructs to real objects 
> cum the representation function from constructs to the state spaces of 
> the world) (ontological entities).*
>
> Thus, unlike the formal Semantic Web, the real Semantic Web includes 
> the correspondence (reification) rules from constructs to real world 
> entities (semantic assumptions), which parallels the semantic systems 
> of natural and social sciences.
>
> As a consequence, the Real Semantic Web (or the world wide intelligent 
> Web) as the pinnacle of ontological semantic technology involves a 
> grand trio of knowledge domains making the Knowledge Trinity:
>
> 1. The world science of Ontology caring the real entities, underlying 
> constraints, principles, truths, and strategic rules;
>
> 2. Semantics managing the whole works of meanings;
>
> 3. Syntax doing business with languages, the signs, and the rules of 
> meaningful constructions.
>
> As in the Holy Trinity, each member of the Knowledge Trinity has its 
> unique goal and role. The goal of ontology is to formulate the overall 
> patterns and fundamental laws of the universe, while its role is to 
> set the world models, rules, and reasoning algorithms for advanced 
> information technology. Syntax supplies the totality of signs, marks, 
> and expressions as formal or natural languages with their operation, 
> formation and transformation rules. Semantics is aimed to provide a 
> general theory of meaning relations between signs, constructs and 
> things, assigning signification to syntactic structures and meanings 
> to conceptual structures. So, semantics integrates the totality of 
> signs, signals or symbols, the domain of knowledge, and the universe 
> of ontological entities and relationships into a comprehensive 
> knowledge and reasoning context (a unified ontology framework), 
> serving as the world modeling framework for all sorts of emerging 
> intellectual information and communications technologies.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.eis.com.cy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Ewell" <mitioke@readware.com <mailto:mitioke@readware.com>>
> To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net 
> <mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>>
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] What should be in an upper-level ontology
>
> > JS> Words must be related to ontologies, but that mapping is a complex
> > many-to-many [or one?] relationship between the words of any natural
> > language and the categories of an ontology.
> >
> > No doubt. Words must be related to ontologies. It is many to many and
> > one to one. depending only on the given.
> >
> >> JS > .any upper level should be as *neutral* as possible. The upper
> >> levels should have very few axioms.
> >>
> > No doubt. I did not offer axioms in the previous post. It does not mean
> > I do not have them. Consider an axiom that defines a set, named,
> > appropriately, {self, others} and what falls between.
> >
> >> JS > A truly neutral upper level should avoid any commitment to what
> >> is considered essential vs. what is considered accidental.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> CONFUSING STATEMENTS
> >>
> >> JS > the upper level is much less important than the mid and lower
> >> levels. Don't waste more time and money on things that don't matter.
> >>
> > I do not know exactly. My experience is that I was given the upper
> > level while the lower levels, though muddled, were made to experience
> > and made to fit, as it were. Just the knowledge of the upper level made
> > things in the lower and middle layers fit -- that, in my mind, may not
> > have fit before; I learned. I did not alter my way of thinking in that
> > I adapted to new facts.
> >
> > -Ken Ewell
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> > To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> > Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> > Community Wiki: 
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
> >
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 15:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:51 UTC