RE: No Standard Semantic Web Pragmatics?

> From: Pat Hayes
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:30 PM
> >
> >I think there should be a means for creating names,
> 
> Right, me too. At present there is no official way to name - to give 
> a name to, to 'baptize' - anything on the Web. All one can do is use 
> names that are created elsewhere, or rely on the sagacity of the 
> reader to figure out what a new name is intended to name from the 
> context of initial use. (? ...all uses? ...all by the owner of the 
> name? ...ignoring the owner of the name? Ah, the familiar debates)
> 
> >i.e., for creating
> >rigid designators, as in Kripke, that could be used in all
> >interpretations to designate the same thing. And I think there should
> >be a standard way to find out what it is intended that it be used for
> >with machine readable data, natural language, images, and anything
> >else necessary to fix its reference. That comes out sounding
> >like what URIs were said to be, at least the URL kind, at least
> >if you put related stuff there (also Pat's 'rather lame' example
> >http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes What is lame about it?).
> 
> That it can only be understood by human readers, and has no meaning 
> for any software agent. Which I think is exactly your point, right?

Well, right, that is clear. But I thought maybe you saw a technical 
problem with it that you were referring to but not revealing. The thing 
about names, if I understand Kripke right, is that they denote by social 
authority, not by descriptive validity. So even if you lied on that page, 
and gave the wrong SS number, or said you were a perfect being, it would 
still refer to you. It would name you by WILL, not by TRUTH, and give the 
rest of the semantic web an anchor point in social reality. It could be 
used to resolve those debates you mention as well, by containing and 
communicating the intent of the creator.

Another pretty thing about this, and other pragmatic machinery, is that 
for the most part, as far as I can tell, they can peacefully coexist with 
the existing model theoretic semantics. They just complement and extend 
it. Or is that not true?

John Black

> 
> 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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 16:59:46 UTC