- From: Tanja Sieber <tanja.sieber@t-dos.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:58:24 +0100
- To: <matthew.west@shell.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hey Matthew,
*snip*
:: The rules of meaning are that when I use a sign,
:: it means what I intended it to. If someone else misinterprets that, then
:: I need to ask the question - did I make it sufficiently clear what the
:: sign represented?
*snap*
The crucial thing on 'textual description' is that you have only the
possibility to communicate with text, which is nothing else than an
agglomeration of symbols (in terms of Peirce) and the interpretation of
these symbols is an intra-personal proceeding of the receiver of these
symbols. Naturally there are some methodologies that help ensuring that the
intended meaning really gets transferable ('functional design','how to
write-Guidelines'), nevertheless you are captured in a world of symbols to
use.
A formal ontology offers now the possibility to classify these "symbols" and
to use 'symbols' for their relations and introducing Identifiers -> still
captured in the world of 'symbols'. The interesting thing concerning
knowledge transfer is maybe more: how can I re-create, re-use existing
"symbols" transfering it in a way, that it is fitting to the concepts a user
is familiar with?
Concerning the authorative sources we could think about an ontology
certification index.
Similar to six sigma there could be also established a kind of an
educationary system wearing different coloured belts:-) And bringing
together the different communities underlying a common platform and system.
Tanja
____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Version: AVK 17.3097 from 06.03.2007
Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 09:59:23 UTC