W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2007

Re: How semantic is semantic web?

From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mgn.ru>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:47:00 +0500
Message-ID: <301191139.20070220224700@mgn.ru>
To: Chiara Carlino <chiaracarlino@epistematica.com>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org

Chiara,
Suppose your point of view is close to the Pragmatics with it's
Umwelt - http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/umwelt.html .
I quoted already in the http://www.ototsky.mgn.ru/it/21abreast.htm :
"From more wide Pragmatism  point of view the ontology itself refers to
what humans have agreed to call "existing" and what can be operated following
the same rules as formulated in our language. We separate mind from matter
for communication purposes."
Supppose it is very important to take this into account for future
"Intellectual Web" . For me the Semantic Web approach is oriented ahead
of all to the "human agents" but there is a great need in B2B
communications don't use(or almost withot using) that "slow and error-prone"
agents.

Best,
Leonid Ototsky - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it

  20  2007 ., 16:49:19:


> I always find it quite hard to explain to people not directly involved
> with semantic web technologies what do we mean by ?semantic web? and
> in which sense it should be semantic. As I say ?semantic? everybody
> always thinks about language and text-retrieving mechanisms.

> Thinking about this and about what definitely ?semantic? means, I  
> realized that ontologies do not really deal with semantics, as they
> give no reference to things in real world: they deal with knowledge.
> We all know that, as we build an ontology, we are explaining the  
> structure of our knowledge, we are not giving a real meaning (i.e. a
> reference to things) to the terms we use, we are just explaining the
> relationships between concepts.
> This is why I suggest to rename what we call semantic web using a new
> term, related more to knowledge and less to meanings. The term I found
> is epistematics, because of the relation with knowledge (epistme) and
> of the analogy with informatics: as informatics deals with the  
> automatic processing of informations, epistematics could point the  
> automatic processing of knowledge, as allowed by ontologies and  
> automatic reasonment.

> I?d be glad to here your opinions about that;
> you can find a detailed explanation of my arguments in pdf format  
> here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1683/epistematics .


> Thanks,

> Chiara Carlino


> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.






-- 
 ,
 Leonid                          mailto:leo@mgn.ru
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 17:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:02 UTC