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

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

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:19:12 +0300
Message-ID: <000e01c680a5$74706540$00bf960a@az00evbfog6nhh>
To: <editor@content-wire.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>

Paola,



Your questions are well justified and welcomed. For it must be recognized 
that the whole enterprise of semantic technology is an otiose undertaking 
and expansive academic mystification without understanding of the nature of 
meaning, its critical dimensions, mechanisms and algorithms of 
representation in computable forms.

It must be clear even to the most obstinate researchers that to build the 
real life knowledge machines [ontological semantic  technology], it is 
necessary to review as inherently defective the formal semantic system of 
functional logic and so-called 'formal ontologies', somehow managing to miss 
the whole real universe of things and relationships:



Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW languages, XML, RDF, 
OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) + designation rules.

In fact, the large enterprise of semantic technology postulates the real 
semantic system of unified ontology:



Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (languages, natural and 
artificial; data systems, static and dynamic) + axioms (ontological, 
scientific, mathematical, and formal logical) + semantic assumptions 
(signification rules).



More about semiotics and the nature of signs in applications, i recommend J. 
Sowa's article,

Ontology, Metadata and Semiotics:

http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/ontometa.htm



As for how critical may be the fundamental knowledge of semantics and 
meaning for the whole matter of large-scale knowledge applications as the 
semantic web may be, you may download the white paper (an introductive 
chapter): Ontology, Semantic Technology, and Knowledge Society:

http://www.eis.com.cy/


All the best,
Azamat Abdoullaev

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pdm" <editor@content-wire.com>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Cc: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>; 
<semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology ? and semiotics?


>
>
> Thanks Azamat
> Well, it does not happen often  that fragments of such old lecture notes 
> can be referenced meaningfully in a conversation.
>
> So, if I understand you right, while semiotics can be seen as  a branch of 
> semantics concerned with the meaning of signs,   for the purpose of our 
> ontology  study semiotics can be defined as 'semantics' in the  broader 
> sense of the word.   I guess in binary code there is no distinction 
> between   words and a signs, but I wonder if at application level where 
> data is expressed as natural language  a conceptual distinction could be 
> of value.
> I think I am going to brush up  my old notes
> Thanks for the clarification
>
> PDM
>
>>
>> <Paola Di Maio>... 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,
>>
>> It was nice to hear from you, and i am glad that you enjoyed the company 
>> of Umberto Eco, who used to explain the complexitities of semiotics, 
>> meanings and ambiguity by fictional works, like The Name of the Rose.
>>
>> As for the issue you arose, both versions have right to exist. In a 
>> narrow sense, Semantics is a linguistic branch caring about the language 
>> significance (linguistic signs), while in a broader meaning, it is what i 
>> suggested below.
>>
>> [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.]
>>
>> At this level, we still abstracted from the pragmatic aspects of meaning, 
>> i.e., the user of the language (the agent of communication, 
>> interpretant); for the production of meaning as well as the processes 
>> whereby an agent (animal, human or robot)  assigns signification to signs 
>> more relate to empirical sciences such as psycholinguistics, history, 
>> anthropology.
>> Adding pragmatical and syntactic dimensions, you come to semiotics 
>> studying the nature of signs, which are generally of three sorts 
>> (natural, mental and cultural (conventional)), as it was discussed 
>> before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Azamat
>>
>>>>
>
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 09:19:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:10 GMT