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

Seems etiquette is to reply to all.
Anyway Azamat, I apologize for misspelling your name. Probably not the only
mistake in my post -:)
It seems like a huge amount of money, but one should understand that these
are terms that governments talk to each other in. As you know the ostensible
wisdom is free trade now days, this is back door state pump priming.
What does seem to me to be relevant is that different approaches be
represented in this effort. Actually I find it hard to believe (perhaps you
know?) that in such a huge spend variations of approach such as you might
advocate and, perhaps one John Sowa might have conceived, are not being
explored.

Well I actually owe Paul Prueitt an apology (he will know) as well, which is
necessary before I make my next comments.
Harry,
First of all is there a semantic-web-philosophy@w3.org list? I guess this
conversation would belong there if there is.
That said arguments are not won by force and bluster.
I find this type of discussion useful to my work, but the very idea that it
couldn't be smacks of coercion, the very thing you are riling against when
you say this is ideology. I don't believe that is so for a minute. I frankly
don't understand a to of the issues being discussed here, this is one of the
reasons I find it useful, but with regard philosophy, specifically
metaphysics, there is a powerful and cogent argument that there are such
things as metaphysical facts. I don't believe that there is any attempt to
indoctrinate with the one true ontology approach. But I do think there is an
attempt to delineate the landscape in a clear way and that clarity will
entail building on certain facts, yes, metaphysical if you will.
As I have said, I don't understand the field well enough to really
contribute. On the whole my attitude is if there is something that operates
consistently on a higher level than RDF/OWL and I can get an intellectual
purchase on it then, hopefully, so much the better for me. But anyway, in
the mean time I am learning about the issues that surround RDF usage.
I have to say that I strongly object to any attempt to curtail my
participating in such discussions.
When it comes to metaphysical fact I know that the sine qua non of a human
is the ability to reason and that reason entails language. My thoughts and
questions are fairly unbiased. Force majeure is not rational argument. But
my foregoing comment is equally as critical of for instance this passage in
the paper:-
Analogical Reasoning <http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm>   by John F.
Sowa and Arun K. Majumdar

According to Aristotle, the essence of human includes both rational and
> animal. Other attributes, such as laughing or being a featherless biped,
> might be unique to humans, but they are *accidental* attributes that could
> be different without changing the essence. Ibn Taymiyya, however, maintained
> that the distinction between essence and accident was arbitrary. Human might
> just as well be defined as laughing animal, with rational as an accidental
> attribute.
>

I, therefore, believe it is a fact that humans are rational in the sense
that we can ascribe reasons to all thoughts, feelings and desires. It
cannot, therefore be an accidental or arbitrary distinction. I am alerted to
the possibility that analogic reasoning is, as its name suggests, in fact a
form of rational process which cannot really be set against other forms of
reasoning. It is a question as to what distinguishes it from other forms.
The following is an illustration of how rational discourse works with
respect to metaphysical fact by another obscure philosopher, Dr G. Klempner,
in a discussion of Dummett and Wittgenstein:-

From Dr Geoffrey Klempner Pathways Letters to My Students Michael Dummett on
'realism'
 <http://www.philosophypathways.com/letters/marg8.html>
>
> My vision of the so-called 'problems of metaphysics' consists in the
> recognition of the simultaneous necessity and impossibility of expressing,
> say, anti-realism or immaterialism. There are no theories that can be
> stated, or refuted, but only the dialectic, the continuous struggle to find
> an adequate expression. Or you can think of it as a battle against
> metaphysical illusions, where the illusion keeps finding different ways to
> 'manifest itself'. There is no such thing as 'realism', there is no such
> thing as 'anti- realism'; there are only the various things that, as a
> putative 'realist' or 'anti-realist' one is more or less irresistably
> tempted to say.


This adds strength to the notion "no one true ontology", while not denying
that there may be a very favourable way of exploring the logic of the field.
What I am interested in here, in this forum, is some instrumental form of
reasoning that would suit my pragmatic purposes. For this reason I am also
interested in the economics and politics of it. I want to know if I can
utilise what ever I know in an as yet under-represented field to my
advantage. So far, this is not difficult to follow or understand. When I am
told that there is work that is being got on with, obviously I know that is
the case, but I should point out that, not with standing the huge spend in
the area, there is another huge spend being made by the UK in Health IT (the
largest such project in the world) and yet there is very, very little
evidence that the benefits of one are being used to the advantage of the
other. This is both alarming and astonishing.
I face two ways on this. On the one hand I would like to see what could be
made relevant to that field (I mean beyond HL7 and Dublin Core). On the
other I have to seriously question if either the methods are correct, the
tools appropriate or what it might be to account for this disjuncture.
Best,
Adam


On 03/04/06, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org > wrote:
>
> 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
>
>