RE: No Standard Semantic Web Pragmatics?

John --

You wrote...

>But you don't seem to be working towards a STANDARD solution.
>There have been many proprietary knowledge representation and
>agent communication language systems developed over the years.
>Some of them are arguably more powerful or sophisticated than
>RDF or OWL. Yet none of them can talk to the rest. I prefer to
>support the ones being developed by the w3c because they are
>based on public, open standards. There is at least a chance
>that all agents based on these standards will be able to
>communicate with each other.

Please take look at the attached file, RDFQueryLangComparison1.txt;

The example tries to build on the standards work from W3C, to fill in some 
of the glaring gaps you have so rightly pointed out.  It uses one form of 
RDF as the base.

So far as I know, there is no work from W3C so far that directly addresses 
the crucial human-semantics/pragmatics problems you have listed.  In fact, 
if I understand correctly, RDF/OWL is by design machine- rather than 
human-oriented.

It's time to drop the other semantic shoe -- human-orientation.   Your list 
of problems is a great first step, and hopefully our work can at least 
serve as one example of how to address some of the problems.

                         Cheers,   -- Adrian



                                            INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC

                                              www.reengineeringllc.com

Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029



At 09:53 PM 6/10/04 -0400, you wrote:
> > From: Adrian Walker
> > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:08 PM
> >
> > John --
> >
> > It's good to see someone stating the problems -- the first
> > step to a solution!
> >
> > A few of your stated problems concerning intended
> > interpretations and URIs
> > are addressed in the "Semantic Web Presentation" at
> > www.reengineeringllc.com .
> >
> > In case your are now thinking, "Oh great, Yet Another
> > Powerpoint", there's
> > an online system in which you can run all the examples in the
> > presentation,
> > using a browser.  You can also use a browser to write and run
> > your own
> > examples.
> >
> > HTH,  -- Adrian
> >
>
>But you don't seem to be working towards a STANDARD solution.
>There have been many proprietary knowledge representation and
>agent communication language systems developed over the years.
>Some of them are arguably more powerful or sophisticated than
>RDF or OWL. Yet none of them can talk to the rest. I prefer to
>support the ones being developed by the w3c because they are
>based on public, open standards. There is at least a chance
>that all agents based on these standards will be able to
>communicate with each other.
>
>John
>
> >
> >
> >                                             INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
> >
> >                                               www.reengineeringllc.com
> >
> > Dr. Adrian Walker
> > Reengineering LLC
> > PO Box 1412
> > Bristol
> > CT 06011-1412 USA
> >
> > Phone: USA 860 583 9677
> > Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
> > Fax:    USA  860 314 1029
> >
> >
> > At 06:17 PM 6/10/04 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >So here is what it looks like to me.
> > >
> > >A general purpose communication system, where:
> > >
> > >There is no standard way to tell who is making statements.
> > >
> > >There is no standard way to tell whether whoever is doing it is
> > >asserting, denying, quoting, or just experimenting with those
> > >statements.
> > >
> > >Its a new, artificial language but there is no standard way for
> > >fixing or learning the intended interpretation of its terms, URIrefs.
> > >
> > >URIrefs, most of which look just like URLs, are to be treated as
> > >strings bearing no standard relation to the URLs they look
> > >like, or to anything that might be done with them on the web.
> > >
> > >You can reason over it, but everything stated is considered true,
> > >and there is no standard way for anything to be unsaid.
> > >
> > >And the people that would need to be involved to develop some
> > >plain old-fashioned standard language pragmatics[1,2] are either
> > >firmly against it or are too busy out writing code with it to
> > >bother.
> > >
> > >Do I understand this correctly?
> > >
> > >
> > >[1] The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction
> > >http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/semprag.html
> > >[2] Pragmatics of the Semantic Web
> > >http://semanticweb2002.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/proceedings/Posi
>tion/kim.pdf
> >
> >
> >John Black