- From: Alejandro Cabral <alejandro.cabral@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:03:24 -0300
- To: Tanja Sieber <tanja.sieber@t-dos.de>
- CC: matthew.west@shell.com, semantic-web@w3.org
Hey to all, my comments below
Tanja Sieber wrote:
>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*
>
>
NoSnipNoSnap
The sign is itself a representation of something, itīs never more than
that. What you consider a sign you try to communicate is your
interpretation of an interpetation, ergo, others will see in that sign
exactly the same, only from their point of view. It is possible though
through certain conventions to find "bridges" between your sign (the one
you show) and the other sign (the one that is seen), maybe that is the
key to this.
>
>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.
>
>
ExclamationMark!
I agree (actually thatīs what I wrote above your comment, sorry to
repeat), though Peirce sounded quite intrigued when I told him about
this, so we decided to consult Foucault who insists on understanding
that there is no primary interpretation of the sign because everything
is already interpeted.
Wouldnīt this help form (or re-form) a standard definition for ontology
in such a way that we can use it to understand all ontologies as
containers instead of their contents?
>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?
>
>
Ah, thatīs what I meant. Yes.
Regards,
Ale
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:03:58 UTC