- From: Pdm <editor@content-wire.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 09:41:42 +0100
- To: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Adam I think the first misunderstanding comes from the fact that I was not posting to Ontac direcly by only in cc as a 'reply to all' button As it looks interesting I ll make sue I ll look up the site, and stick to the charter in the future when I post there. Just to get the rest of our spat into context: I made a simple observation whether 'semiotics' would be be more appropriate than 'semantic' in a given set of definitions that were being propagated. My post was a brief 'what if' questions and was not meant to be a complete accurate finite sound conclusive piece of philosophical thinking. Sorry I am violating any posting rules that I am not aware of. I think if its true the a distinction between semantics and semiotics could enhance our ontology (hypothesis) then my question is relvant to all knowledge domains. I will post cc Ontac whenever I have a full paper on that Hope to have more constructive exchanges in the future PDM > Actually I am all for conceptual freedom and lose language, but you > know this is like the criticism of Freud's free association: is it > really free? > As to the term inferior philosophy what I meant was doing philosophy > badly, not that, in this context, one philosophy is superior to > another. But I will stand by the idea that doing philosophy can be > done better or worse, my self I am terrible because I am not a > philosopher. But I think what is being done here is doing ONTAC badly, > should be done as philosophy and hopefully would be done better than > what so far seems to me to be of little philosophical promise, but > then, what do I know? > This is the ONTAC charter:- > > • To keep each of its members aware of efforts similar to their > own, so as to reduce duplicative effort and rapidly disseminate > theoretical and practical knowledge about the creation and use of > knowledge classification and representation systems, especially as > related to governmental activities. (2QP5) > <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP5> > > > • To promote interoperability by identifying common concepts among > knowledge classifications developed by different groups, and by > creating mappings: (2QP6) > <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP6> > > * o from individual domain classifications to the common upper > or mid-level ontologies; (2QP7) > <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP7> > > * o from individual domain classifications to other domain > classifications. (2QP8) > <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP8> > > • To identify, create, and share programs that use knowledge > classification systems, especially those that may help to evaluate > and compare the functionality of classifications. (2QP9) > <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP9> > > In support of these activities, the group will: (2QPA) > <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QPA> > > • Maintain, as a community, a common upper ontology and a set of > contexts and mid-level ontologies which will provide a mechanism > for resolution of questions as to which concepts in which > classifications are: identical to; different from but consistent > with; or logically incompatible with, those of other classifications; > > Perhaps you could explain to me how this investigation via "adaptable > boundaries to capture the essence of scientific truth" will lead to > any of the above aims and objectives, which seem to me to be quite > material goals. > > demonstrated? you mean you want me to demostrate the relevance of > philosophy to semantics? I am sure I have got a lot of catching up to > do, and so do you > > > There is absolutely no doubt that I would have a lot of catching up to > do if that were my aim, but demonstrating the relevance of philosophy > to semantics is such a broad goal as to be really ludicrous. It is > pretty much the same, by analogy, as demonstrating the relevance of > wetness to water - there is a hell of a lot that can be said about it, > but at the same time one knows them to be inextricably bound and not > needing demonstration. > But you are avoiding the real issue which is how semantics can be > treated algorithmically, and that entails a very restricted sense of > semantics. > From above:- > > the creation and use of knowledge classification and > representation systems, especially as related to governmental > activities. > > > I do not credit (any) government with great philosophical or > metaphysical drive, but I do think there is a job to be done. As I > say, show me I am wrong. > > You say:- > > I think we should try not to mistake our own ignorance as other > people' > arrogance, especially when something does not appear relevant > to us because we do not understand it and lack the appropriate > references. > > > But I think there is an arrogance here. You seem to want to play this > both ways. On the one hand I am stiff, formal, seek references and > quotes that might stiffle free discussion, and I intimidate, on the > other you tell me that actually I am ignorant and that i can't follow > what others are saying. > Well I am telling you, you are failing to explain, you are failing to > make yourselves relevant and frankly, I think you are arrogant. > > Now, if we are talking philosophy, consider this:- > > Charlotte asked: > What is Frege's puzzle? Why did he reject the metalinguistic > solution and change to reference and > sense? What is his second solution and does it work any better > than the first? > and Alex asked: > I'm writing an undergraduate essay about Frege, which is, "Is > sense a semantic property of singular > terms?" I would greatly appreciate any help on this subject as it > is very difficult and I don't understand > it!! Thank you. > > > Klempner's answer, delivered with refreshing clarity, a complete lack > of guile and a disarming straightforwardness can be found at this link. > http://www.philosophos.com/Knowledge_base/archives_9/philosophy_questions_913.html > It is highly relevant to this forum. As I suspect, from the point of > view of philosophy the semantic web is absurd because of the reduction > of the semantic value of names ( e.g. 'Bruce' or 'Geoffrey' in the > reference) to the object to which they refer. As yet, the enterprise > entailing "semantics" and machines is philosophically absurd, but i > don't think that's the discusion that will forward the aim of ONTAC, > nor especially important in the furtherance of those aims. > Machine "semantics" is not a full bodied semantics, surely we know that? > Why do I keep on refering to Klempner? Because I am slightly familiar > with his work and know he has made a life times work out of making > philosophy relevant and available to people, but without shirking > either the need for clarity or facing difficult issues. > I am within my rights to make such an appeal for clarity and facing > the issues here as the least I would expect in dealing with this > complex subject matter. > Adam > > On 26/05/06, *Pdm* <editor@content-wire.com > <mailto:editor@content-wire.com>> wrote: > > > Adam! > Sorry thate conceptual freedom and loose language make you > unconfortable. They too are necessary to research. > I am not aware of any tight dialectic or rigid requirementes to > post to > this forum, but forgive me if I am mistaken > Here I think we are trying to establish what is true, and and what > constructs can best represent that. Not easy. > I am not sure I have got the right language, but I did not think > someone > in this forum could be so stiff / > Apols - PDM. > > /* > > *//*Speculation to the heretic, theology to the orthodox But the > **dust > of the **rose-**petal **belongs to the heart of the perfume-seller. */ > Ab_'l Fazl > > > > > (continue not established dialectic) > > I think we should try not to mistake our own ignorance as other > people' > arrogance, especially when something does not appear relevant > to us because we do not understand it and lack the appropriate > references. It happens to all of us,. > A post in an intersciplinary forum - unless a clear and stated > pre-requirement - does not have to adhere to the specification you > describe below to be a relevant contribution. > > > > > Is the interlocutor contributing anything new? > > A new perspective? A new idea?A thought? Is this relevant in your > dimension? > > > Are they offering a novel explanation that clarifies things for > > people, maybe irrespective of their own level? > > Maybe they are just asking a question, that will in turn lead to an > explanation...or is this not allowed ? > > > Do they draw on the accepted work of past experts who have built the > > foundations to the field? > > Maybe they will in the next post, if you don not intimidate them too > much.... > > > Are their contribution pithy and to the point > > Depending what metrics . I dont think yours is, on this occasion. > > > Are they able to highlight explicit technical details in context and > > with relevant examples? > > Maybe yes, or maybe no - but they are under no obligation to do > so.Maybe > if you ask politely......:-) > > > > > If one is to speak of the foundations of the field I would expect > > learned references to Frege, Russel, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Ayers, > > Austin, Dummett, Grice and many others. > > Exactly, many others. How much time have you got? I am rather busy > today > but maybe next time > What about if I just mention the ones that I am familiar with?Problem > with that? > > > The point is that this is just not the forum for that, and what > comes > > across is inferior philosophy > > Are you talking about mine being inferior, or yours? > > > out of context of any established dialectic, > > Established? I do not see anything set in stone yet, sorry. And I > do not > do dialectics, sorry > > > foisted upon a reluctant audience. > > you dont have to approve of all the posts that you dont like - > > > I don't think that anyone in this forum has so far demonstrated the > > relevance of the philosophical investigation to the activity of > > typical participants on this forum. > > demonstrated? you mean you want me to demostrate the relevance of > philosophy to semantics? I am sure I have got a lot of catching up to > do, and so do you > > > That is not to say it isn't relevant, but to establish this you > would > > have to adhere to a strict and well thought out regime. > > Strict Regime? Ah, that's what you do, sorry I dont do too strict > regimes these days. > I think we need adaptable boundaries to capture the essence of > scientific truth, but we can talk about it on a separate forum > perhaps? > > > > From that point of view there is a rational behind the BCNGroup. > But I > > remain sceptical. While Grice cuts to the quick, you may recollect > > that he was notorious for a. succinct notation and b. a lack of > > algorithms. b. simply wasn't part of his approach since he was > > concerned with logical analysis. Unless the case can be made for > > machine computation achieved on the basis of a broad logic but > without > > algorithms that can be reduced to binary logic then there seems > to be > > no immediate connection between these ruminations and the purpose of > > this list. That means that the appropriate place for them is a > > philosophical forum. > > However, I think that they may well be shot down on such a forum. > > Philosophers work hard at their statements, or else there is just no > > point. > > This is a taste of real philosophical dialectic, but open to > anyone to > > participate in (obviously a short extract, out of context):- > > > > I was hoping that someone with expertise on Islamic philosophy > > would respond to a question which came in a whole month ago > from a > > Ms Zahedi, a PhD student. She wants to know how one might > compare > > the problem of essence in Frege (1848—1925) and the Islamic > > philosopher Avicenna (980—1037). My only clue, from an utterly > > impregnable article in the /Oxford Companion to Philosophy/ is > > that one of Avicenna's 'two best-known formulations' is: > > > > *the ontological distinction between essence and > existence, in > > which the essences of existing entities cannot be > explained as > > actualized forms of their material potentialities without an > > existing cause whose existence, while coexistent with the > > caused and perceived essence, is prior in rank.* > > > > I have read this extract a dozen times, and still it makes about > > as much sense to me as 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves > did gyre > > and gimble in the wabe'. The author of the article, a > certain Prof > > Hossein Ziai from UCLA, would evidently be the best person to > > answer Ms Zahedi's question — assuming, of course, that Prof > Ziai > > knows somewhat more about Frege than I know about Avicenna. > > > > But I've a good hunch what this is about. The essence of a > thing, > > in Fregean terms, consists in the /concepts/ under which it > falls. > > If you take a physical entity, say, an elephant, there is an > > open-ended list of concepts under which it might be classified: > > '_is an elephant', '_weighs over two tons', '_lives at London > > Zoo', '_likes apples' and so on. Suppose that you made up a long > > list. If you showed someone the list, they could still ask, > 'Does > > this entity which you have described /exist?/ > > > > Frege, following Kant, denied that existence is a concept under > > which some thing might, or might not fall. Existence is not a > > predicate. > > > > from http://www.pathways.plus.com/glasshouse/notebook/page72.html > > And about what philosophers expect of one another :- > > > > Dummett has thought more deeply than most academic philosophers > > about the fundamental questions of the philosophy of logic > and the > > philosophy of language. But his 'rules' theory of concepts is > > wrong (in my view). Since most philosophers' theories are wrong, > > that is the least serious criticism one could make of him as a > > philosopher! The theory itself poses little threat, largely > > because so few persons are able to really understand it! (myself > > included, at least on some days). > > > > I did have the opportunity to put my objection to Dummett's > > account of the mechanism of the criticism of concepts in > terms of > > changing the 'rules for use' directly to him at a seminar in > > Oxford once. His response was along the lines of, 'I don't know > > what to say about that.' It is a measure of his elevated stature > > (the 'seminar' was more like a lecture audience packed with dons > > and graduate students) that he could get away with that reply! > > > > from http://www.pathways.plus.com/glasshouse/notebook/page72.html > > > > I would say that, by any one's standards, this manner of > expression is > > open, appealing and intelligible. But it invites a thinking process > > that doesn't quite fit in this forum, or any forum I am aware of > with > > a technical bent. > > I do not think, by way of contrast, that the vague, obscure and > > impenetrable qualifies for inclusion in this forum just because it > > seems to be touching on issues addressed here by way of common > > concepts such as ontology and so forth. I think it just > qualifies as > > bad philosophy with all the arrogance that implies. > > > > Adam Saltiel > > > > On 25/05/06, * Pdm* <editor@content-wire.com > <mailto:editor@content-wire.com> > > <mailto: editor@content-wire.com > <mailto:editor@content-wire.com>>> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > <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 <http://www.eis.com.cy> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2006 08:42:01 UTC