Re: some notes

LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:
> 
>>Dictionary definitions are not really definitions in any foundational
> 
> sense:
> 
>>they are kind of sketches of a meaning which themselves rely on the
>>same connected web of shared knowledge (some of it about language
>>itself) which they set out to explain. URIs don't have this
>>surrounding context of shared beliefs and so on; and in any case,
>>URIs are not NL words.
> 
> 
> I disagree. Although dictionary definitions do not reflect the same rigor as
> a mathematical definition, they certainly provide enough definition to allow
> a "common usage" According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/ a
> pharmaceutical is defined as a medicinal drug. So even without context, I
> should be able to glean enough knowledge to know that using the word
> 'pharmaceutical' could be used to refer to an aspirin, but not to my dog.

Sure, _if_ you already know that an aspirin is "medicinal" and that a 
dog is not.  There's part of your context.  Or look up a word that fits 
right in with logic/ai/etc - "proof".  Wordnet gives 6 noun senses for 
"proof", one of which relates to the alchohol content of beverages. 
Which one should I use right here and now?  It depends on the context of 
the conversation.


> While I certainly do't claim that if we had enough "URI dictionaries" we
> could avoid all misuse, abuse, and disagreement, I can't help but think that
> it would be beneficial to have registries play an authority role (perhaps
> more descriptive than prescriptive). As someone else already stated, isn't
> the difference between words and URI's (simply viewed as tokens for the
> moment) that while a NL word may have different meanings represented by the
> same string (token), we insist that URI's reflect the different meanings by
> assigning different strings to each meaning...not so different from what is
> used in referencing dictionaries as in pharmaceutical[1], pharmaceutical[2].
> 

That is presuming that you can in fact define any one of those 
"meanings" in a clear and definite way that is completely independent of 
any context.  That is not likely to be possible.  Consider the legal 
profession.  Part of the business of being a lawyer is to craft language 
that is so precise in its meaning that it cannot be misunderstood, yet a 
large number of court cases serve mainly to determine the effective 
meaning of legal terms and documents.  The precise legal "meaning" of a 
word or phrase is determined primarily by years and centuries of court 
decisions.

So how can you ever expect to precisely define an invariant meaning to 
thousands and millions of URIs?

> I also disagree that 
> 
> 
>>NL takes ages to build up meaning through usage,
> 
> 
> Certainly language as a whole has taken ages to reach its present state, but
> new words pop into common usage overnite, btw. OK, maybe one shouldn't
> consider 'btw' a word, but there are plenty examples that are, not all from
> the internet/web either. If a group of KB engineers start using some URI
> '.../theNewFoo', it will quickly assume some meaning among that group and
> any who have a need to converse with that group regarding theNewFoo.

Right - if you want to converse with that group you had best use words 
in a way similar to the way they will hear them.  Context again.

What is the slang meaning of the word "cool", or "wicked" (as used in 
New England), or "bad"?  What is the meaning of "boot" as used in Denver 
and "boot" as used in England?  What is the meaning of "http://www.w3.org"?

Cheers,

Tom P

Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 12:55:40 UTC