- From: Sherman Monroe <smonroe@overdogg.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:35:27 -0500
- To: erichoffer@yahoo.com
- Cc: martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "Ian Emmons" <iemmons@bbn.com>, semantic-web@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <e23f467e0807181335p4a84608dq549c1794a4333c22@mail.gmail.com>
Eric, But not all URI's are bound (formally) to a particular ontology, or it may be that the URI is bound to multiple ontologies (e.g. a person (foaf ontology) who is a manager (northwind ontology) who needs a plumber (tiwan ontology)). -sherman On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Eric Hoffer <erichoffer@yahoo.com> wrote: > What I meant was simply that by specifying particular namespaces and > ontologies (unless we're talking upper-), aren't you thereby indicating the > intended context and/or perspective? > > --- On *Fri, 7/18/08, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>* wrote: > > From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com> > Subject: Re: "In Defense of Ambiguity" > To: erichoffer@yahoo.com, martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at, "Alan Ruttenberg" < > alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "Ian Emmons" < > iemmons@bbn.com>, semantic-web@w3c.org > Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 3:41 PM > > > Eric > > I hardly know where to start, since I don't understand > "applicability of rule/relationship sets". > Could you please explain what that means? > > It is easy to explain what I mean by "context", > as implemented in the mKR language. > I will ignore space,time subcontext for now. > > A "proposition" in mKR takes the form > > at view = v { sentence }; > > "v" names the context of the sentence. > The context is a list of propositions; > it includes definitions of all terms used in "sentence". > "sentence" is an English-like statement, question or command. > > Dick McCullough > http://mKRmKE.org/ > Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done; > knowledge := man do identify od existent done; > knowledge haspart proposition list; > mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done; > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Eric Hoffer <erichoffer@yahoo.com> > *To:* martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at ; Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>; Richard > H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com> > *Cc:* Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com> ; Ian Emmons<iemmons@bbn.com>; > semantic-web@w3c.org > *Sent:* Friday, July 18, 2008 9:11 AM > *Subject:* Re: "In Defense of Ambiguity" > > Apologies in advance - twofold > - first for picking a mid-thread post to respond to, and > - for my lay-person's perspective/level, but... > > But isn't the applicability of rule/relationship sets exactly what > constitutes "context"? > And isn't that what namespaces are delineating? > > (and what then is being suggested differently here?) > > > --- On *Wed, 7/16/08, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>* wrote: > > From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com> > Subject: Re: "In Defense of Ambiguity" > To: martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "Ian Emmons" < > iemmons@bbn.com>, semantic-web@w3c.org > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 4:58 AM > > Let's be explicit. > Any thoughts of "negotiating" or "refining" the meaning of > a term -- > we're talking about the "context" in which the term is defined. > > RDF/OWL people have little experience with "context" -- to them > it's basically a namespace. RDF/OWL really doesn't have > "context" > in its vocabulary. > > OpenCyc explicitly addresses "context", which is referred to as > a "microtheory" (forgetting space,time for the moment). > OpenCyc, in its attempt to capture common-sense knowledge, > has defined thousands of microtheories. They are facing the > "context" > issue head on, and are making some progress. > > Until RDF/OWL introduces the concept of "context", > in a form similar to CycL's "microtheory', or mKR's > "view", > you won't make any progress in this area. . > > Dick McCullough > http://mKRmKE.org/ > Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done; > knowledge := > man do > identify od existent done; > knowledge haspart proposition list; > mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done; > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at> > To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>; > "Ian Emmons" > <iemmons@bbn.com>; <semantic-web@w3c.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:53 PM > Subject: Re: "In Defense of Ambiguity" > > > Hi Alan: > Basically all I wanted to say is that in human communication, we clarify > and refine the meaning associated to words in the course of > communication, while the current SW infrastructure requires us to define > the meaning of a conceptual element identified by a URI beforehand. > Quite clearly, there can be multiple similar elements with different > URIs. But we cannot currently negotiate the meaning of this very URI. > > My main > concern is that > reducing query answering to querying a static > representation may be too simple an approach, same as matchmaking for > needed products is not a simple query, but often a complex communication > process. For example, we learn of the option space by seeing the results > to our initial queries and then typically refine our usage of the > vocabulary. > > "..Language is a living organism that adapts to the development and the > trends of society as a whole."[1] > > Best > > > Martin > > > [1] Umberto Eco in his nice preface "The Meaning of The Meaning of > Meaning" to Ogden/Richards „The Meaning of Meaning" > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > > > >>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > >>> > >>> Current ontology infrastructure requires that we reach > >>> consensus first. > Human communication > on the contrary allows > >>> us to postpone dispute and clarification to a later point in > >>> time in which the disagreement becomes relevant, if it ever > >>> gets relevant. > >> > >> This sounds overly pessimistic to me. Yes, some things in the > >> semantic web *do* need to be agreed in advance, such as the general > >> rules for determining the meaning of a statement. But individual > >> ontologies do not -- they can be developed independently and only > >> adopted as needed -- and there is nothing to stop an application from > >> taking a lazy evaluation approach to semantic web data just as humans > >> do. An application could postpone determining the meaning of a > >> particular RDF statement (which involves determining the meaning of > >> its constituent URIs) until it is needed > > > > Huh? Figuring out exactly > what someone meant when > they said something > > after the fact is a huge problem. In a previous job it was routine to > > go around to the various people who documented their experiments in > > lab books because the lab books in isolation were too difficult to > > understand. Understanding them after the people who wrote them left > > the company was often impossible. > > > > If people can't do it, why would you expect some application would? > > > >> , sort of like a backward chaining reasoning style: start with the > >> goal, and then figure out what information is needed to reach that > goal. > > > > The problem is that the information is encoded in the language used in > > the statement. If you don't understand the terms you can't even > get at > > the information. > > > >> And if a particular statement never ends up being needed, so be it. > > > > Sure. But if a > statement *is* needed you're > out of luck. > > > > -Alan > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------- > martin hepp, http://www.heppnetz.de > mhepp@computer.org, skype mfhepp > > > > -- I pray that you may prosper in all things and be healthy, even as your soul prospers (3 John 1:2)
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 20:36:05 UTC