Re: "In Defense of Ambiguity"

Alan,

This isn't a formal term, but basically by "bound" to an ontology I mean the
namespace of the URI is equal to the namespace representing the ontology, or
that the URI is in the rdfs:domain or rdfs:range of a property from some
certain ontology.

-sherman

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Sherman Monroe wrote:
>
> 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)).
>
> What does it mean for a URI to be bound to an ontology?
> -Alan
>
>
>
> -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)
>
>
>


-- 
I pray that you may prosper in all things and be healthy, even as your soul
prospers
(3 John 1:2)