Re: URI Declarations [Usage scenario 1b]

At 1:28 PM -0500 3/4/08, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>Help us out here, Pat.  What's the right way?

I don't know. If I did, I would be igniting a revolution in cognitive 
science. But this is the wrong question. Why do you want to be able 
to do this? What problem is it solving? What utility does it have? 
Apart, that is, from enabling the TAG to say that it was using the 
right word all along?

>  rdfs:comment ?  Independent publications (such as ontology specs)? 
>Are we already doing everything we can?

The SWeb seems to be ticking along without any need for a special 
grounding mechanism. In practice, people manage to get their 
referents grounded well enough in practice, without needing to be 
told how to do it. Any general universal guidance on how to do it 
right is going to be wrong. So why not just shut up about it, and 
leave people to ground things in the way they prefer? The actual 
machinery of the SWeb operates independently of this discussion. 
Ontologies have the same entailments whether or not the terms are 


>On Mar 4, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>At 6:46 PM -0500 3/3/08, John Cowan wrote:
>>Cutting to the chase, as philosophical debates are inappropriate to 
>>this forum:
>>>  > RDF and OWL already have identity built into their model theories, so
>>>>  we don't need anything new to have that.
>>>They have formal identity, but not grounded identity, and it's grounding
>>>that we need in order to be talking about anything.
>>Indeed. Exactly. And one cannot get grounding by making purely 
>>formal assertions, even if they are called 'declarations' and 
>>you have to believe them, on pain of being very naughty. David 
>>wants to get grounding, but he's going about it the wrong way.

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 18:43:36 UTC