- From: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:28:52 +0200
- To: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
- Cc: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "Bradwell (US), Prachant" <prachant.bradwell@boeing.com>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net>, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>, xyzscy <1047571207@qq.com>
Hi, > "information is knowledge in action”. Actually, I think it’s the other way around: “Knowledge is information in action”. In other words, and simplifying a bit, any information that is used for an action (to achieve a goal) becomes knowledge, when coupled with the information about the action itself. Daniel --- Daniel Schwabe Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356 R. M. de S. Vicente, 225 Fax: +55-21-3527 1530 Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe > On Jun 17, 2019, at 12:53 - 17/06/19, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote: > > but Pat that's already a useful delineation, during my time investigating context-aware mobile computing I also came to the conclusion that it would make sense to separate "context" that does have an altering effect on the meaning of the content from one that doesn't. Earlier in this thread I took the liberty to use the formula "contextual usage of knowledge makes it information", Kuhlen actually uses the word "action" instead culminating in the slogan: "information is knowledge in action". Pat before you disregard this little info nugget here as just gobbledygook keep in mind that it originates from social sciences and epistemology. I appreciate your own observation with regards to the use of “context”, it certainly can be a very mushed situation and participants in the discussion are not necessarily trained or prepared to partake in a philosophical debate about these aspects right away. But wasn't that always like that in AI research? Conferences, workshops, research bodies had to drive participation and increase range to be economically viable and socially relevant? It's no surprise that the Semantic Web community seems to be particularly vulnerable here due to its use of the word "semantic" (almost intentionally) in its name and the lack of "consistent use of terminology". Maybe best best to use "Knowledge Graph" here just as catchy AI marketing slogan like the "Big Data" or "Smart Data" categories du jour to be championed by respective market participants, it maybe neither or only vaguely refer to knowledge or graphs. > > PS: bad news especially when it comes to numbers I find it the greatest source of misunderstandings since they are almost always unexpectedly, by syntactical differences, used heavily use case dependent. BTW our social security numbers may not be as unique as you might think. >
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2019 07:30:03 UTC