- From: Pdm <editor@content-wire.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 19:23:14 +0100
- To: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Adam!
Sorry thate conceptual freedom and loose language make you
unconfortable. They too are necessary to research.
I am not aware of any tight dialectic or rigid requirementes to post to
this forum, but forgive me if I am mistaken
Here I think we are trying to establish what is true, and and what
constructs can best represent that. Not easy.
I am not sure I have got the right language, but I did not think someone
in this forum could be so stiff /
Apols - PDM.
/*
*//*Speculation to the heretic, theology to the orthodox But the **dust
of the **rose-**petal **belongs to the heart of the perfume-seller. */
Ab_'l Fazl
(continue not established dialectic)
I think we should try not to mistake our own ignorance as other people'
arrogance, especially when something does not appear relevant
to us because we do not understand it and lack the appropriate
references. It happens to all of us,.
A post in an intersciplinary forum - unless a clear and stated
pre-requirement - does not have to adhere to the specification you
describe below to be a relevant contribution.
>
> Is the interlocutor contributing anything new?
A new perspective? A new idea?A thought? Is this relevant in your
dimension?
> Are they offering a novel explanation that clarifies things for
> people, maybe irrespective of their own level?
Maybe they are just asking a question, that will in turn lead to an
explanation...or is this not allowed ?
> Do they draw on the accepted work of past experts who have built the
> foundations to the field?
Maybe they will in the next post, if you don not intimidate them too
much....
> Are their contribution pithy and to the point
Depending what metrics . I dont think yours is, on this occasion.
> Are they able to highlight explicit technical details in context and
> with relevant examples?
Maybe yes, or maybe no - but they are under no obligation to do so.Maybe
if you ask politely......:-)
>
> If one is to speak of the foundations of the field I would expect
> learned references to Frege, Russel, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Ayers,
> Austin, Dummett, Grice and many others.
Exactly, many others. How much time have you got? I am rather busy today
but maybe next time
What about if I just mention the ones that I am familiar with?Problem
with that?
> The point is that this is just not the forum for that, and what comes
> across is inferior philosophy
Are you talking about mine being inferior, or yours?
> out of context of any established dialectic,
Established? I do not see anything set in stone yet, sorry. And I do not
do dialectics, sorry
> foisted upon a reluctant audience.
you dont have to approve of all the posts that you dont like -
> I don't think that anyone in this forum has so far demonstrated the
> relevance of the philosophical investigation to the activity of
> typical participants on this forum.
demonstrated? you mean you want me to demostrate the relevance of
philosophy to semantics? I am sure I have got a lot of catching up to
do, and so do you
> That is not to say it isn't relevant, but to establish this you would
> have to adhere to a strict and well thought out regime.
Strict Regime? Ah, that's what you do, sorry I dont do too strict
regimes these days.
I think we need adaptable boundaries to capture the essence of
scientific truth, but we can talk about it on a separate forum perhaps?
> From that point of view there is a rational behind the BCNGroup. But I
> remain sceptical. While Grice cuts to the quick, you may recollect
> that he was notorious for a. succinct notation and b. a lack of
> algorithms. b. simply wasn't part of his approach since he was
> concerned with logical analysis. Unless the case can be made for
> machine computation achieved on the basis of a broad logic but without
> algorithms that can be reduced to binary logic then there seems to be
> no immediate connection between these ruminations and the purpose of
> this list. That means that the appropriate place for them is a
> philosophical forum.
> However, I think that they may well be shot down on such a forum.
> Philosophers work hard at their statements, or else there is just no
> point.
> This is a taste of real philosophical dialectic, but open to anyone to
> participate in (obviously a short extract, out of context):-
>
> I was hoping that someone with expertise on Islamic philosophy
> would respond to a question which came in a whole month ago from a
> Ms Zahedi, a PhD student. She wants to know how one might compare
> the problem of essence in Frege (1848—1925) and the Islamic
> philosopher Avicenna (980—1037). My only clue, from an utterly
> impregnable article in the /Oxford Companion to Philosophy/ is
> that one of Avicenna's 'two best-known formulations' is:
>
> *the ontological distinction between essence and existence, in
> which the essences of existing entities cannot be explained as
> actualized forms of their material potentialities without an
> existing cause whose existence, while coexistent with the
> caused and perceived essence, is prior in rank.*
>
> I have read this extract a dozen times, and still it makes about
> as much sense to me as 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre
> and gimble in the wabe'. The author of the article, a certain Prof
> Hossein Ziai from UCLA, would evidently be the best person to
> answer Ms Zahedi's question — assuming, of course, that Prof Ziai
> knows somewhat more about Frege than I know about Avicenna.
>
> But I've a good hunch what this is about. The essence of a thing,
> in Fregean terms, consists in the /concepts/ under which it falls.
> If you take a physical entity, say, an elephant, there is an
> open-ended list of concepts under which it might be classified:
> '_is an elephant', '_weighs over two tons', '_lives at London
> Zoo', '_likes apples' and so on. Suppose that you made up a long
> list. If you showed someone the list, they could still ask, 'Does
> this entity which you have described /exist?/
>
> Frege, following Kant, denied that existence is a concept under
> which some thing might, or might not fall. Existence is not a
> predicate.
>
> from http://www.pathways.plus.com/glasshouse/notebook/page72.html
> And about what philosophers expect of one another :-
>
> Dummett has thought more deeply than most academic philosophers
> about the fundamental questions of the philosophy of logic and the
> philosophy of language. But his 'rules' theory of concepts is
> wrong (in my view). Since most philosophers' theories are wrong,
> that is the least serious criticism one could make of him as a
> philosopher! The theory itself poses little threat, largely
> because so few persons are able to really understand it! (myself
> included, at least on some days).
>
> I did have the opportunity to put my objection to Dummett's
> account of the mechanism of the criticism of concepts in terms of
> changing the 'rules for use' directly to him at a seminar in
> Oxford once. His response was along the lines of, 'I don't know
> what to say about that.' It is a measure of his elevated stature
> (the 'seminar' was more like a lecture audience packed with dons
> and graduate students) that he could get away with that reply!
>
> from http://www.pathways.plus.com/glasshouse/notebook/page72.html
>
> I would say that, by any one's standards, this manner of expression is
> open, appealing and intelligible. But it invites a thinking process
> that doesn't quite fit in this forum, or any forum I am aware of with
> a technical bent.
> I do not think, by way of contrast, that the vague, obscure and
> impenetrable qualifies for inclusion in this forum just because it
> seems to be touching on issues addressed here by way of common
> concepts such as ontology and so forth. I think it just qualifies as
> bad philosophy with all the arrogance that implies.
>
> Adam Saltiel
>
> On 25/05/06, * Pdm* <editor@content-wire.com
> <mailto:editor@content-wire.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Azamat
> 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics>
>
> 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
> > http://www.eis.com.cy <http://www.eis.com.cy>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Ewell" <mitioke@readware.com
> <mailto:mitioke@readware.com> <mailto: mitioke@readware.com
> <mailto:mitioke@readware.com>>>
> > To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net
> <mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>
> > <mailto: ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net
> <mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>>>
> > 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> CONFUSING STATEMENTS
> > >>
> > >> 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: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> <http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/>
> > > To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net
> <mailto:ontac-forum@colab.cim3.net>
> > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> > http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> > > Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> <http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/>
> > > Community Wiki:
> >
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG>
> > >
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 18:23:31 UTC