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

      I still have yet to see as I asked for many repeated times: either
a UFO based on RDF/OWL that everyone would use without considerable
argument or a good use case why everyone should use a single UFO that
does not violate basic common-sense, i.e. the fact that people have
different perspectives on the world and individuate and abstract objects
differently." I am arguing against particularly as regards the complaint
that the SemWeb should have built/standardized a UFO *first* and then
developed a formal semantics around that particular UFO, as this goes
against every lesson KR has learned in the last 30 years ("What's in a
link" by W.A. Wood,the Brachman-Smith survey). Now please go build
you're UFO that solves all problems of semiotics and pragmatics and
e-mail us back when it's complete, or at least when you have a useable 
prototype. That's the challenge. I've made an argument against UFOs as
regards semiotics and pragmatics, I want to see an existence proof *on
the SemWeb*. Otherwise, it's sort of off-topic for this list.

So, as I said earlier, please send all e-mails about UFOs, philosophers,
aesthetics, and such "off-list." I do believe this permathread is not
all that productive. Now, if we had an actual UFO to talk about we could
download in play with (which is why I am impressed with, even if I do
not agree with DOLCE-Lite) that would be more productive. A number of
other productive things could be done by the pro-UFO camp, like writing
a comparison of UFOs for the Semantic Web, or finding out exactly why
their favorite UFO could not be modelled in RDF/OWL, etc.

                                                                              
-harry

Azamat wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
		-harry

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

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 13:01:17 UTC