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: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:50:25 +0300
Message-ID: <000e01c682fc$edc1ac20$e053960a@homepc>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>
Cc: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@tamu.edu>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

Chris,

If violating the basic laws of reasoning were punishable, you could risk a 
life sentence.
See my final comments below.
Take care,
Azamat
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@tamu.edu>
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>; <editor@content-wire.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology and Semiotics


>
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:07:18PM +0300, Azamat wrote:
>> Chris's sophistries are more shocking. There is a rather clear
>> conditional statement, with the plain vanilla meaning:
>>
>> <AA> 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.
>
> The word "conditional" appears to have a meaning for you that it doesn't
> have for anyone else; this makes for difficult communication.
> Typically, the conditionality of a claim is made explict by the word
> "if" or the like, or by the use of the subjunctive mood.  By contrast,
> you use the straightforwardly declarative "is" to characterize "the
> whole enterprise of semantic technology" as "an otiose undertaking <blah
> blah blah>".  That you find floating somewhere in this baldly
> declarative statement a "clear conditional" is as mystifying and bizarre
> as those who claim to see images of the Virgin burnt into their morning
> tortillas.

This is an example of what is usually designated as 'ridiculous' and 
'nonsensical'. Just another sample of defective forms of reasoning: verbal 
fallacy, putting your perverted interpretation.
As you must know, conditional clauses are introduced by the following 
conjunctions: if, unless, except, whether, provided that, so long as, etc. 
See the intended structure of the sentence:

{The main clause} [the whole enterprise of semantic technology is an otiose 
undertaking and expansive academic mystification]
without
{condition} [understanding of the nature of meaning, its critical 
dimensions, mechanisms and algorithms of representation in computable 
forms].
Look up Webster's dictionary just to find out that 'without' has a sense of 
conjunctions 'unless', 'except on the condition that'.

The law-abiding citizens could easily read it like this:

If no [understanding of the nature of meaning, its critical dimensions, 
mechanisms and algorithms of representation in computable forms], then [the 
whole enterprise of semantic technology is an otiose undertaking and 
expansive academic mystification].
'Understanding the nature of meaning...' is here a condition, precondition, 
stipulation, provision, or assumption, that which must exists for something 
else to be, that on which rests the effect (validity, truth) of something 
else. Moreover, it is a necesary condition for 'the building of semantic 
technology', like as 'the ill will may be a condition for your confusing 
reasoning'.

Please no more of your mind-abusing 'offences', i had enough of your 
unmeaning und unprofitable talk.
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 08:50:52 UTC

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