Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)

I'm tempted to suggest that this conversation be moved to
semantic-web-philosophy@w3.org. I'm also tempted to take a line from Pat
Hayes's argument against TimBL on whether or not a URI addresses a
single unambiguous thing, and just say "Look, you're not wrong, you're
just insane"  as regards people who are complaining about the Web
lacking semiotics/pragmatics/the perfect design/a better syntax :)

The entire point of the Web is that people have can create different
ontologies, which represent not necessarily agreeing points of view.
People can and will use different levels of abstractions and want to
talk about different things in differing manners, even using different
sorts of syntax. Despite this, by giving them the same formal semantics
and one naming system (URIs), they can actually use (owl:import) and
talk about each other.

As soon as anyone says "I invented the *One Perfect Ontology*, and it
even includes very subjective things like *pragmatics* and *semiotics*,
so if everyone should use my one ontology and all our problems go away"
- well, I'd have to say that's a bad and naive idea. Assuming there is
"The One  Big Ontology" out there we can all use endorses a naive
logical positivism (a sort of blatantly wrong reading of the Tracatus)
and this sort of thinking has been ditched by both philosophers and
psychologists (as well as most ordinary people). There is a giant
well-documented literature in philosophy and psychology that (no
surprise) shows our perceptions and abstractions are situation-specific
- I would recommend the work of Andy Clark for easy-to-read
introductions. I would say that the same applies to the "Look at My
Great Design" argument that Sowa was advocating earlier.

So, yes, just implement a standard upper ontology of pragmatics and
semiotics (in KIF, OWL, whatever) and then e-mail the listserv when it
actually does something useful using a real-life use-case instead of
complaining that the Semantic Web doesn't map directly onto it, and
people will be pleased. You may even win the RDF.net prize!

 But even then it will never solve everyone's KR problems, and the
entire point of the Semantic Web isn't to endorse "One Big Ontology
based on Bunge" but to allow people to create their own small ontologies
in a decentralized manner. And that may be a good idea.

Paul S Prueitt wrote:
> You suggest in 
>
> " The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper Level
> Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that ULOs can
> be expressed in RDF/OW"
>
> That there exist upper level ontology that meets all requirement imagined in
> Semantic Web language and that it has been demonstrated that this upper
> level ontology can be expressed in OWL?
>
> Is this what you are suggesting?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:50 AM
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Cc: adasal; John F. Sowa; semantic-web@w3.org; Paul S Prueitt;
> brian.macklin@cec.eu.int; timbl+speaking@w3.org; colette.maloney@cec.eu.int
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF
> reification)
>
> On 4/3/06, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:
>
> Simply put,
>   
>> we must understand which web (or architectural pillars) most fits the
>> matter, the formal semantic web (i.e., the syntactic web, known as the SW
>> layer cake) or the real semantic web, something like this version:
>>
>> <Real Semantic Web> ::= <Ontological Framework> < Logical Framework>
>> <Semiotics> <the Web>
>> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
>> Ontologies> <EOL>
>>
>> <Logical Framework> ::= <FMF> | < ... > <EOL>
>>
>> <Semiotics> ::= <Pragmatics> <Semantics> <Syntax> <EOL>
>> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
>>     
> <Communication>
>   
>> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>
>>
>> <Semantics> ::= <Signs, Natural Language Expressions> <Meanings> <EOL>
>>
>> <Syntax> ::= <Rules> <OWL Ontology> <RDF Schema> <RDF M&S> < RDF>
>>     
> <XML/SGML>
>   
>> <Namespaces> <EOL>
>> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
>> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols, HTTP>
>> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL>
>>     
>
> I'm neither a philosopher nor logician, so forgive me if sounds naive:
> how does the above "grammar" conflict with what (if I understand
> correctly) you are calling the "syntactic web" - i.e. the Semantic Web
> of the W3C initiative?
>
> Ok, there are certainly differences, like here:
>
>   
>> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
>> Ontologies> <EOL>
>>     
>
> The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper Level
> Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that
> ULOs can be expressed in RDF/OWL.
>
> ...here:
>
>   
>> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
>>     
> <Communication>
>   
>> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>
>>     
>
> and here:
>
>   
>> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
>> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols, HTTP>
>> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL>
>>     
>
> - only half of each of these are explicit in the layer cake, the rest
> (I would suggest) being implicit parts of the system, e.g. the
> Semantic Web being an extension of the current Web, the current Web
> includes HTTP hence the SW includes HTTP. Both feature Users, Agents
> etc.
>
> So it looks to me like your "real semantic web" is the same as the
> W3C's Semantic Web, but for a few undocumented features in the latter.
> Where's the problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://dannyayers.com
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 14:59:17 UTC