W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:00:09 -0700
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
CC: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C2D51B19.4E09%dnickull@adobe.com>

Referring of course to Ontology as the study of being.  I have not read
Goedel.

D


On 7/31/07 4:54 PM, "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com> wrote:

> Peter:
> 
> That jives with my beliefs, as crooked and warped as they may be.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> /d
> 
> 
> On 7/31/07 2:13 PM, "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote:
> 
>> Duane:
>> You are right. This goes to the heart of the issue of "vicious circularity"
>> that Whitehead and Russell had thought was sorted with Principia Mathematica,
>> until Kurt Gödel came along and demolished their shiny, perfect, world. An
>> ontology is not just some self-referencing and self-sustaining model that is
>> somehow "complete"; it points out to the real world, as you rightly say.
>> 
>> Before there is a flame war on this, I should underline that we discussed
>> this
>> extensively at the Ontology Summit, and there was an (uncomfortable for some)
>> consensus that there is "Ontology" as *the* study of being; and there are
>> "ontologies" that are domain-specific encapsulations of some aspect of the
>> real world.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
>> Sent: 31 July 2007 16:05
>> To: [ontolog-forum]; John F. Sowa
>> Cc: 'SW-forum'
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/31/07 12:46 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:
>> 
>>> The real semantics or meanings of any symbolism or notation is defined by
>>> ontology; for this is the only knowledge domain studying the Being of
>>> Everything which is, happens and relates.
>> 
>> Not trying to start a nit picky argument, but I had always thought that real
>> semantics are defined by how a term is used and what it is linked to in a
>> physical world (which of course can be captured and expressed in an
>> ontology).  Otherwise any ontology is just a huge circular reference (like
>> the english dictionary when void of any grounding.
>> 
>> How can one define and convey the true meaning of spicy food, heat, pain etc
>> without the corresponding grounding experience?
>> 
>> Duane 

-- 
**********************************************************************
"Speaking only for myself"
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
MAX 2007 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-max-2007.html
**********************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 13:04:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT