- From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:58:55 +0300
- To: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Harry, If you try to intelligently challenge somebody's claims, avoid rhetoric and digressing into irrelevant topics, but stick to the subject of discussion. Azamat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>; "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@virtualTaos.net>; <danny.ayers@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:21 AM Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification) > > My comments had nothing whatsoever against Bunge personally or his > formal systems, which I haven't read and am unlikely to anytime soon. In > my last post you could have replaced "Bunge" with "Azamat" or > "Aristotle" or anyone else that may have a Unifying Framework Ontology. > I was just making the point that *any* Unifying Framework Ontology is > exactly what its acronym stands for - a UFO, an *unidentified flying > object* that no-one will ever agree on for real-world use. Therefore > expecting the Semantic Web to build the provide its users with Unifying > Framework Ontology is an invalid criticism, and also in my opinion UFOs > are a bad idea that current philosophy and psychology (and most of KR) > seemed to have given up on a long time ago for reasons re-iterated > earlier. > > However, if you still think UFOs are a good idea, the Semantic Web gives > you the formal semantics and language to attempt to define one yourself. > *Just do it* and stop complaining that the Semantic Web has > misinterpreted Bunge/you/Paul Prueitt/whatever. I don't think this sort > of stuff was even on the horizon (again, for good reason I think) when > things were being standardized. If you wish to build a UFO using RDF and > OWL, please look at some of the others like DOLCE, and just do it, and > send everyone an e-mail when it's finished. > > In the meantime, in attempt to spare the rest of this listserv, please > respond to me about UFOs, pragmatics, semiotics, reality models, > difference and repetition, obscure philosophers, and such *off-list. * > Please. > > cheers, > harry > Azamat wrote: >> >> Harry, >> >> Want to clear some points, which you are heavily (mis)using in your >> argumentation with Paul. It seems you somehow missed my comments on >> Bunge's formal philosophy sent to the ONTAC forum: >> ''His philosophical position is badly skewed, with tendency to >> scientific factualism and Quine's nominalism.'' However formalized,in >> no way such world scheme can be used as a unifying framework ontology >> (UFO), although some good computing researchers try to do this. Just >> sketching the outline of the UFO as a general ontological framework >> for the Real Web, this reality model consists of the following >> formative elements: >> >> UFO: Lattice (Set) Theory + n-Relational Algebra + Aristotle's >> Categories, Analytics, Topics, Metaphysics, Physics (Substantial >> Ontology) + Kant's Ontology (Relational Ontology). >> >> Note that the OWL, or rather LWL language, is nothing but an >> idiosyncratic interpretation of the Topics' notions of ''class'', >> ''property'', ''individual'', ''definition'', ''statement'', >> ''sameness'' ''difference'' and ''subsumption'', fully missing the >> substance and content of any significant universe of discourse, the >> fundamental ontological classes or predicates. It is quite possible >> that its authors don't know about this, thinking they created >> something original. >> >> Respects, >> Azamat Abdoullaev >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> >> To: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@virtualTaos.net> >> Cc: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>; "'adasal'" >> <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>; <semantic-web@w3.org> >> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:48 PM >> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of >> RDF reification) >> >> >>> >>> You're right - I am missing the point - it's not philosophy. When >>> arguing against people that believe in the "One Big Ontology" approach >>> or the "Perfect Design" approach, it's an argument against ideology. >>> It's like arguing about the existence of God, and about as >>> productive. :) >>> >>> And I'm not arguing against pragmatics per se, I'm arguing against >>> standardizing notions of pragmatics. Instead, by decentralizing the >>> creation of ontologies and allowing people to expose data as they see >>> fit, they will build off their concrete real-life situations and >>> experiences. Over time, useful abstract ontologies may or may not >>> emerge. And yes, it is messy making this stuff fit in >>> RDF/OWL-DL/whatever, but the same would hold with any formalism, period. >>> And what I am arguing is that if people are supposed to use in a >>> decentralized manner to build out of one standard centralized ontology >>> (i.e. Entity/Endurant/whatever) and one that tried to delimit pragmatics >>> (illocutionary/some bizarre version of control theory/etc) then well, >>> it's going to *a lot worse.* Give people minimal constraints, not >>> maximal ones. >>> >>> So get around to expressing your pragmatics in OWL-DL or RDF or KIF or >>> whatever. And then show a real-life use case. Then who knows, nothing >>> prevents you from standardizing it yourself. Then if enough people use >>> it, the ISO or W3C could give it their stamp of approval. But to >>> critique the Semantic Web for not reading (Fill in your favorite >>> ontology/philosopher here, like Bunge) and standardizing him is kinda >>> silly, since that would obviously be a case of premature optimization. >>> >>> Until then, I'm going to do what I'm sure almost everyone else on this >>> list-serv is doing, which is ignore this whole thread so I can get some >>> work done :) >>> >>> Paul S Prueitt wrote: >>>> You miss the point, as most do in the W3C column. >>>> >>>> For a discussion of the issue of representation of reality with a >>>> formal >>>> system, please review >>>> >>>> http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm >>>> >>>> And citations referenced ... >>>> >>>> It is not correct to think of this as philosophy. There are real >>>> practical >>>> problems with the notion that formalism (created by knowledge >>>> engineering >>>> individuals often without deep insight into domain specific context) >>>> would >>>> be found acceptable outside of these (knowledge engineering >>>> context). BioPax >>>> is perhaps the best example of good cell and gene signal expression >>>> ontology >>>> - and this ontology is designed to take a step towards data sharing >>>> - not >>>> designed to explain signal expression. Again, practical issues >>>> arise when >>>> OWL is used in complex situations. One can work around this, as BioPAX >>>> does; nicely, but one cannot remove certain issues (related to >>>> degeneracy of >>>> entailment in specific instances). >>>> >>>> But it is not merely that the wrong community might be designing >>>> ontology >>>> for the rest of us, it is that (any) formalism is the result of >>>> induction. >>>> In so many cases, what is needed is that the ontological model be >>>> formative >>>> in the context of a real situation, now; ie have a pragmatic dimension. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@ibiblio.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:59 AM >>>> To: Paul S Prueitt >>>> Cc: 'Danny Ayers'; 'adasal'; semantic-web@w3.org; >>>> timbl+speaking@w3.org; >>>> colette.maloney@cec.eu.int >>>> Subject: 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > -harry > > Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh > http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426 > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 08:40:06 UTC