Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology ? and semiotics?

thanks a lot for the interesting and detailed exposition below, from 
which I learn

Maybe because I have studied with a leading semiologist ( Umberto Eco), 
but I would argue that what you refer to in parts of your definition 
below woudl be best called semiotics (science of signes and symbols) and 
not semantics.

To me semantics is the meaning of words, and semiotis is the meaning of 
non verbal communication, ie signs and symbols
Please correct me where I am wrong,

Paola Di Maio

> Ken,
> Essentially determining the nature of meaning (and significance), this 
> matter is the core issue not only for a unified computing ontology but 
> also for the machine processed semantics, the key element of the 
> semantic web. For signs (as the words of different languages) must be 
> related to concepts and ontological entities only by a many-to-one 
> relationship: from the words of natural languages (or the symbols of 
> formal ontology languages) to the concepts of the mind (the constructs 
> of knowledge machines) to the categories of ontology (the kinds of 
> things in the world). As an example, consider the class of 
> relationship, which can expressed by as many names as ‘connection’, 
> ‘association’, ‘link’, ‘reference’, ‘regard’, ‘tie’, ‘bond’; or 
> indicated by as many verbs as ‘to relate’, ‘associate’, link’, ‘link 
> up’, ‘connect’, ‘tie-in’, ‘colligate’, ‘refer’, pertain’, ‘concern’, 
> ‘bear on’, etc. Or, take the class of events expressed by as many 
> words as ‘happening’, ‘occurrence’, ‘occurrent’, ‘contingency’, 
> ‘outcome’, ‘effect’, ‘issue’, ‘upshot’, ‘result’, etc. For instance, 
> the process (event) of fire is that significance which the name 'fire' 
> has when it denotes the natural phenomenon. There is a plenty of 
> natural languages using their specific signs for this process, 
> nevertheless having always the same signification, since the concept 
> of fire is the same and the human experience is the same, regardless 
> of its numerous expressions in different natural or artificial 
> languages: 'fire', 'Feuer', 'ogon', etc..
> So, semantic system may be constructed as a formal semantics or as a 
> more comprehensive and consistent, real world semantics; namely:
> **
> *Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW languages, XML, 
> RDF, OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) + designation 
> rules (the semantic function from the set of language expressions into 
> the collection of constructs)*
> *Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system + axioms (ontological, 
> mathematical, formal logical) + designation rules + semantic 
> assumptions (the reference function from constructs to real objects 
> cum the representation function from constructs to the state spaces of 
> the world) (ontological entities).*
> Thus, unlike the formal Semantic Web, the real Semantic Web includes 
> the correspondence (reification) rules from constructs to real world 
> entities (semantic assumptions), which parallels the semantic systems 
> of natural and social sciences.
> As a consequence, the Real Semantic Web (or the world wide intelligent 
> Web) as the pinnacle of ontological semantic technology involves a 
> grand trio of knowledge domains making the Knowledge Trinity:
> 1. The world science of Ontology caring the real entities, underlying 
> constraints, principles, truths, and strategic rules;
> 2. Semantics managing the whole works of meanings;
> 3. Syntax doing business with languages, the signs, and the rules of 
> meaningful constructions.
> As in the Holy Trinity, each member of the Knowledge Trinity has its 
> unique goal and role. The goal of ontology is to formulate the overall 
> patterns and fundamental laws of the universe, while its role is to 
> set the world models, rules, and reasoning algorithms for advanced 
> information technology. Syntax supplies the totality of signs, marks, 
> and expressions as formal or natural languages with their operation, 
> formation and transformation rules. Semantics is aimed to provide a 
> general theory of meaning relations between signs, constructs and 
> things, assigning signification to syntactic structures and meanings 
> to conceptual structures. So, semantics integrates the totality of 
> signs, signals or symbols, the domain of knowledge, and the universe 
> of ontological entities and relationships into a comprehensive 
> knowledge and reasoning context (a unified ontology framework), 
> serving as the world modeling framework for all sorts of emerging 
> intellectual information and communications technologies.
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Ewell" < <>>
> To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" < 
> <>>
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] What should be in an upper-level ontology
> > JS> Words must be related to ontologies, but that mapping is a complex
> > many-to-many [or one?] relationship between the words of any natural
> > language and the categories of an ontology.
> >
> > No doubt. Words must be related to ontologies. It is many to many and
> > one to one. depending only on the given.
> >
> >> JS > .any upper level should be as *neutral* as possible. The upper
> >> levels should have very few axioms.
> >>
> > No doubt. I did not offer axioms in the previous post. It does not mean
> > I do not have them. Consider an axiom that defines a set, named,
> > appropriately, {self, others} and what falls between.
> >
> >> JS > A truly neutral upper level should avoid any commitment to what
> >> is considered essential vs. what is considered accidental.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> JS > the upper level is much less important than the mid and lower
> >> levels. Don't waste more time and money on things that don't matter.
> >>
> > I do not know exactly. My experience is that I was given the upper
> > level while the lower levels, though muddled, were made to experience
> > and made to fit, as it were. Just the knowledge of the upper level made
> > things in the lower and middle layers fit -- that, in my mind, may not
> > have fit before; I learned. I did not alter my way of thinking in that
> > I adapted to new facts.
> >
> > -Ken Ewell
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives:
> > To Post:
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
> > Shared Files:
> > Community Wiki: 
> >

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 15:42:10 UTC