- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:13:27 +0200
- To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
-Henry Story says-------------------------------------------------------------------- - Hi Azamat I have reposted your reply to me with indentation, so that people reading your reply to me can distinguish between what I said and your reply to what I said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Henry, i don't ignore you messages, moreover, when i can try to read them attentively; for they always have some useful learning about practical issues. See some comments below. Respects, Azamat Abdoullaev On 4 Apr 2006, at 11:11, Henry Story wrote: > Hi Azamat, since you are in the mood of giving lessons, perhaps you > should also not ignore replies made to you. > I posted a reply to you on this thread, and you completely ignored > it. I also want my 5 page reply ;-) > > There are 3 points: > > a. It is possible to pass from very contextual data to less > contextual data [1] > b. It may be impossible to completely decontextualise data [2] > c. In another thread someone seems to in fact be embarked on > creating a very decontextualised ontology > using RDF of the type you claim is impossible to do with these > tools [3] > > Because of (a) above it is ok for people to encode their data on > the semantic web in a very contextual fashion. Ie. Nothing stops > people just getting their work done. Furthermore there is no need > to wait for the final upper ontology to be complete, since it may > be impossible. On the other hand nothing stops anyone working on a > very decontextualised ontology, which when finished, everyone will > be able to map their data to using [1] if necessary. So stuff like > (c) is welcome and it seems indeed possible. Here may lie all the misreading of my point, which i would like to emphasize. There may be a multitude of different ontologies, perspectives, views, pictures, attitudes, outlooks regarding the nature of 'environmental universals' as substance, object, state, change, time, space, cause, quality, relation, body, etc. Still among human beings and human races, there is an established agreement regarding some general things in the universe; namely: The world or reality or universe exists; There are entities or things or beings in the world; Entities have properties; Entities have parts; Entities stand in relationships; There are space-time relations; Things change over time; Entities exist as substances, states, and processes Substances have masses and occupy spaces; etc. The collection of these common ontological axioms make the general knowledge about reality, or the ontological context, the general commitments underlying all sorts of specific contexts, models, theories, and languages, like SW formal languages. Nobody is here talking about a single ontological standard dictating how you should express your conceptual world, it may be as chaotic as you like. But when you model some real world domain or communicate with somebody or try to understand some natural language, the meanings of its words. Above your personal commitments, you need to evoke (represent or code) a general knowledge about things [the result of your perception, deep learning, experience, and reasoning] unifying all reasoning entities, human and machine, within a single intelligent framework. This is the primary meaning of UFO, unifying framework ontology of the world and its content, which is designed to bring some fundamental order, organization and structure to your (Web) data, and so ontologically contextualized. > So you are left with trying to show that the work done in (c) is > failing in some essential way. And you have to proove that this > failing is such that no more decontextualised framework can be > created that will help resolve this problem. Then you would also > have to show that no useful work can be done at all even without > such a generalised schema. See my distinction of ontological relations and formal logical relations, which is only a variety of relationships [sent to Hans]. > For me to feel that you had prooved this, I would have to believe > that you had understood rdf very well. But at present you seem to > be stumbling on some basic misconceptions such that one cannot > express nary relations in rdf, even though I pointed this out > recently [4] > > [[ > If you want to relate an object to a bunch of things just relate > it to a list. > > :henry :onlyowns (:laptop :hat :camera) . > > or relate it to a class with a number of properties > > [ :color :blue; > :temperature "25"; > :position [ :lat "23"; :long "45" ] > ] . > > ]] > > > Henry Story > > > [1] See code http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/ > 2006Mar/0175.html > [2] mentioned in this paper http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/ > node/101 > but probably the result of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Good > arguments for this somewhere anyone? > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Mar/0312 > [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Mar/0252 > > On 4 Apr 2006, at 09:58, 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 >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 15:13:46 UTC