W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Social meaning discussion 6th March

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:18:17 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b06ba8a8cf71a13@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isis.unc.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

>At 10:31 PM 3/1/03 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>>  Something has one meaning.
>>This isn't true even in ordinary human discourse in natural 
>>language. There just is no such notion of a single 'one meaning'; 
>>the idea isn't coherent.
>I'd like to explore this a little, noting that RDF is not "ordinary 
>human discourse in natural language".
>Stepping back from meaning that can be formally specified, I'd like 
>to try a notion of a single meaning (in RDF):
>(a) each URI used has exactly one denotation
>(b) each URI used as a property has just one relational extension
>(A consequence --for which this is sufficient but not necessary-- 
>would be that the truth or falsity of any expression using a given 
>vocabulary of URIs is fixed.)
>I'm not attempting to describe a specific interpretation in the 
>model theoretic sense.

Well, in fact you are. That is, if you fix the denotations and the 
relational extensions, you've fixed everything.

>Though I suspect that there can be only one such interpretation (on 
>a given vocabulary) that could concur with such a meaning.


>We have no way of fully specifying such a "one meaning", but I think 
>it's reasonable to allow that we can develop successive 
>approximations that converge (asymptotically, as it were) to such a 

Well, maybe that is a reasonable idea, but there are several 
limitations to it, since one can easily show that there is never a 
single such satisfying interpretation as far as the MT is concerned. 
So the single intended model has to be defined by some extra-MT-ish 

More seriously in the context of the original thread, this entire 
picture assumes that it makes sense to think in MT terms over a range 
of languages. This is indeed possible with RDF/S/OWL-Full, but (a) 
setting this up was a major piece of work, and amounted to making 
these into a single language; it is meaningless when we are supposed 
to have a single meaning which crosses arbitrary language boundaries; 
and (b) it may well not be possible for future languages, or 
extensions which take the RDF/S/OWL axis in some other direction (eg 
some of the 'rules' proposals).


>This may not be a useful idea, but I'm trying here to see if there 
>may be ways to reconcile what I think are two apparently-reasonable 
>At 10:31 PM 3/1/03 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>>Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>>2. The meaning of the statement is defined by the definition
>>>>>>>of the predicate, as applying to the subject and object 
>>>>>>>identified by the
>>>>>>>definition of the subject and object terms.
>>>>>>This for me is the crux: do we mean the machine oriented 'definition'
>>>>>>in RDFS or OWL or N3, or some more rounded/scruffy/social 
>>>>>>notion of definition.
>>>>I find Bijan's observation compelling
>>>>But there's no vague, much less precise, definition of "defining 
>>>>information". And I'm a logical reasoner, will this information 
>>>>be opaque to me? (Well, if in German, yes, but *all* human 
>>>>So it's formal meaning isn't fixed IN ANY WAY by the "authority"? 
>>>>And the social meaning?
>>>There seem to be a confusion here that things have two meanings, a 
>>>"formal" one
>>>and a "social" one.    I don't think that is useful.
>>I think it is essential, although this way of putting it is 
>>potentially confusing. It might be better to distinguish between 
>>how much of the meaning is accessible to who and to what. The 
>>'formal' meaning is that part which is accessible to software. But 
>>even the 'social' part, ie all the rest, varies from reader to 
>>reader. In some cases, a reader might find more meaning than the 
>>original writer thought was in the document.
>>>  Something has one meaning.
>>This isn't true even in ordinary human discourse in natural 
>>language. There just is no such notion of a single 'one meaning'; 
>>the idea isn't coherent.
>>>"inverseProperty" can be defined mathemaically, but remember that  the
>>>mathematical symbols used are probably defined in english somewhere.
>>That is highly debateable and depends what you mean by 'defined', 
>>but in any case its irrelevant to the issue here. If your point is 
>>that *all* meanings are ultimately described in English, that isn't 
>>>"color" can't be defined formally in terms of mathemaics, unless you have
>>>assume a lot of other terms to do with spectral reflectivity and light.
>>Well, "color" actually can be defined in scientific terms, in fact, 
>>but you'd be better with an example like "red" which probably can't 
>>be defined at all. This has got nothing whatever to do with 
>>mathematics, but it does tend to show that there isn't any single 
>>meaning to words like color names.
>>>>Two points:
>>>>- "whatevers available" is simply not clear enough.
>>>There are a lot of social systems for relating definitoins to terms.
>>>These include domain name owndership, the Web, etc.
>>>The web is a big place.  Predciates and terms vary enormously.
>>>For RDF to be able to describe real things, it is essential that
>>>some terms be defined in english.
>>Why English? And why is this true? You can't define "red" in 
>>English. And more to the point, maybe, what does 'defined' mean 
>>here? RDF can't use definitions given in English.
>>>  Look at the cyc ontology.
>>That is a very bad example for your point: the intended purpose of 
>>Cyc is precisely NOT to rely on English definitions.  The meaning 
>>of any CYC term is completely defined by the CYC axioms using that 
>>term (and all linked axioms, ie ultimately by the whole of Cyc.) 
>>You can strip out all the English comments and the meaning is 
>>unchanged. The same goes for almost all large-scale ontology work, 
>>in fact.
>>>I'm not sure what you are unhappy with, here.
>>>Are you saying it is not clear enough?
>>It certainly is not clear enough.
>>>Are you saying that
>>>it is not clear what the definitions of the terms are?
>>It is clear that any English definitions cannot be reflected in any 
>>normative account of meaning which is reflected in any operation of 
>>any RDF software. IF RDF tries to incorporate any such notion of 
>>meaning into its spec, then it has just become a joke.
>>>Are you saying that the english definitions should not be allowed?
>>Allowed in what sense? What I am saying is that allowed or not, 
>>they are not the slightest actual USE. Any sense of 'meaning' which 
>>depends on them isn't going to influence in any way what any piece 
>>of software does to the RDF. And since the point of the spec is 
>>largely to help writers of software, referring to something that is 
>>necessarily irrelevant is either pointless or actively harmful.
>>>Or do you want a clean algorithm for determining which
>>>english documents define a given term, from the web?  (That we 
>>>could probably
>>That would be very interesting. I doubt if this can even be made 
>>precise enough to be meaningful, let alone provided as an 
>>algorithm. And in any case, suppose you could. Now, how is my RDF 
>>engine going to read and understand those English documents?
>>>>- RDF has decided to avoid the notion of definition for the 
>>>>formal semantics, we shouldn't then have it in the informal 
>>>Well, every specification upon  which the web has depended up till 
>>>now, including
>>>Ethernet and unicode and TCP/IP and HTTP has had the meaning of its terms
>>>and structures explained in english, informally.  These specs have been used
>>>to build software, resolve many discussions,  and so on.
>>Yes, but this reply misses an essential point. The part of those 
>>specs whose meaning is fixed between software apps is the part that 
>>can be specified in the specs. None of those specs have set out to 
>>define a general meaning-carrying representation. In the case of 
>>ontology languages like RDF, the common part that can be defined by 
>>the spec is the *general rules* for meanings, ie the semantics, NOT 
>>the 'meaning' of particular RDF URIrefs. The spec says nothing at 
>>all about what <ex:myUri> 'means', and if you write a document in 
>>English explaining what its supposed to mean, then its not the 
>>slightest use or relevance, since no piece of software on the 
>>planet in the forseeable future is going to be able to read your 
>>English 'definition'.
>>>  There are a mass of
>>>RDF schemas and related documents going to be written -- but it 
>>>needs the RDF
>>>spec to pass on the authority to them to define their fields.
>>I don't see how the spec of a language can, or should, pass on any 
>>authority to define anything. It didnt have the authority to define 
>>the meanings of any items not in its namespace in the first place. 
>>What it can do, and does, it specify how to characterize the 
>>content of any piece of the language, so that definers of meanings 
>>can determine how to constrain those meanings using the language. 
>>That is what the model theory sets out to do.
>>>Just because *some* aspects of the meaning of *some* RDF terms can
>>>be expressed formally
>>want the spec to define other aspects of meaning, please tell us 
>>how to write it (the spec) so as to refer to those other aspects of 
>>meaning. Its not good just using words like "meaning" and 
>>"definition" without saying what we mean by them. Words like this 
>>don't have exact enough meanings to use in a specification.
>>>   does not remove the duty of the RDF spec to
>>>say what an RDF document means.
>>The SPEC cannot possibly say what a particular RDF document means, 
>>any more than a dictionary can tell a story. It can only give 
>>general rules for attaching meanings to documents, which is what 
>>the semantics does.
>>>The formal semantics cannot define "color".
>>Right, and "color" can't be defined in RDF.
>>>Suppose I send you an RDF document syaing (in n3)
>>><http://example.info/ips/gg5#y004> <http://example.com/dsaf#enFap> "176".
>>>How would you know what I was telling you?
>>I would know that some thing had some property with value '176' (a 
>>string), and if that's all the RDF I can see, that is ALL I know. 
>>If you want me to know more, you had better send me some more RDF.
>>>How would someone who had not heard of RDF before?
>>>The mime type would take them to the RDF spec and -- then what?
>>The above is what I would learn from the RDF spec. Of course the 
>>RDF spec can't tell me what you mean by 
>><http://example.info/ips/gg5#y004>; and you might tell ME what you 
>>mean in English, but (this being the semantic web) that's largely 
>>irrelevant; the question at issue is what some piece of software 
>>acting on my behalf can get out of it. If its written in English, 
>>the answer is, nothing.
>>>>For me, either of these is fatal. This cat has had its nine lives.
>>>Fatal for the idea of defining what an RDF document means?
>>>How sad.
>>>In that case, I suppose we had better start all over again, as
>>>we have ended up with a languge of meaningless documents.
>>You can start over all you want, but you will not get anything much 
>>better than this (except in the sense that OWL is better than RDF, 
>>and full FOL would be better than OWL). To get better than this you 
>>will need to create a web of movie-style Artifical Intelligences, 
>>and you won't get that done by a W3C working group. All languages - 
>>even human languages like English - are 'meaningless' in some very 
>>strict sense. Their meaning is what a cognitive agent can get out 
>>of them, and RDF agents - in fact, any software agents that we know 
>>how to build -  have pretty limited cognitive powers.
>>>If  RDF is only be to be used to encode mathmeatical
>>>formalisms,  and not information about the real world,
>>>do we need another langauge to express data?
>>This discussion has nothing to do with mathematics versus the real 
>>world. Model theory is about worlds, including the real world. The 
>>point at issue is HOW MUCH INFORMATION is encoded in some RDF; and 
>>the answer is, rather little. But we knew that up front, before we 
>>started. It is obvious that RDF cannot encode the kind of 
>>information that humans can send to one another using languages 
>>like English, in a form useable by software agents. But that's not 
>>a failure of RDF: *nothing* can do this. To do this would require 
>>us to be able to provide software with human-level cognitive powers.
>>Pat Hayes
>>IHMC                                    (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>40 South Alcaniz St.                    (850)202 4416   office
>>Pensacola                               (850)202 4440   fax
>>FL 32501                                        (850)291 0667    cell
>>phayes@ai.uwf.edu                 http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>>s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
>Graham Klyne
>PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 12:18:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC