- From: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@olin.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:07:03 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Thank you, Peter, for clarifying something that I have long known but not been able to really wrap my head around: > > Issues with RDF Concepts: > > 1/ The notion of social meaning has no place in the specification of a > formal system. > > PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Social meaning, as defined in the RDF Concepts > document, has no effect whatsoever on the meaning of OWL ontologies. > > NB: I view this as an extremely serious issue. > > I believe that this is precisely the distinction between a formal system and a social system. In your proposed resolution, the word "meaning" is used twice with two different senses. By "the meaning of OWL ontologies", I take it you intend something like denotational semantics (though I don't mean to rule out an axiomatic encoding; I just intend "what the term refers to"). But by "social meaning..." I take RDF to intend something I'd call "effective semantics", i.e., "what work the term can do in the world". So, for example, an ontology may formally mean one thing but the courts may (in practice, perhaps even incorrectly) use it as the basis for making a distinct legal ruling. The legal ruling may be at odds with the "meaning" in your sense of the ontology, but it then becomes part of the "effective semantics" or "social meaning" of the ontology. If, as I suspect may happen, the WebOnt WG goes with the formal notion of "meaning", I think that it is important to clarify that this is the kind of meaning we're talking about and that actual (if incorrect) usage in the world is outside the scope of the formal specification. (In fact, the formal specification is giving meaning to the notion of "correct usage". But "correct" is sometimes different from "effective" in the philosophical and pragmatic senses.) This isn't necessarily the approach I'd take, but I think it's likely to be the pragmatic solution to where we are. I appreciate Peter's phrasing it succinctly and, at least for me, really highlighting the issue. I'm fine with the proposed resolution *provided* the distinction between meaning-in-Peter's-sense (and of course with a long and glorious history!) and effectiveness/pragmatic utility is made. Lynn
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 09:07:03 UTC