Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics and Ontology ? and semiotics?

Adam
I think the first misunderstanding comes from the fact that I was not 
posting to Ontac direcly by only in cc as a 'reply to all' button
As it looks interesting I ll make sue I ll look up the site, and stick 
to the charter in the future when I post there.
Just to get the rest of our spat into context: I made a simple 
observation whether 'semiotics' would be be more appropriate than 
'semantic' in a given
set of definitions that were being propagated. My post was a brief 
'what if' questions and was not meant to be a complete accurate finite 
sound conclusive piece of philosophical thinking. Sorry I am violating 
any posting rules that I am not aware of.
I think if its true the a distinction between semantics and semiotics 
could enhance our ontology (hypothesis) then my question is relvant to 
all knowledge domains.
I will post cc Ontac whenever I have a full paper on that
Hope to have more constructive exchanges in the future
PDM
> Actually I am all for conceptual freedom and lose language, but you 
> know this is like the criticism of Freud's free association: is it 
> really free?
> As to the term inferior philosophy what I meant was doing philosophy 
> badly, not that, in this context, one philosophy is superior to 
> another. But I will stand by the idea that doing philosophy can be 
> done better or worse, my self I am terrible because I am not a 
> philosopher. But I think what is being done here is doing ONTAC badly, 
> should be done as philosophy and hopefully would be done better than 
> what so far seems to me to be of little philosophical promise, but 
> then, what do I know?
> This is the ONTAC charter:-
>
> • To keep each of its members aware of efforts similar to their
> own, so as to reduce duplicative effort and rapidly disseminate
> theoretical and practical knowledge about the creation and use of
> knowledge classification and representation systems, especially as
> related to governmental activities. (2QP5)
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP5>
>
>
> • To promote interoperability by identifying common concepts among
> knowledge classifications developed by different groups, and by
> creating mappings: (2QP6)
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP6>
>
> * o from individual domain classifications to the common upper
> or mid-level ontologies; (2QP7)
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP7>
>
> * o from individual domain classifications to other domain
> classifications. (2QP8)
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP8>
>
> • To identify, create, and share programs that use knowledge
> classification systems, especially those that may help to evaluate
> and compare the functionality of classifications. (2QP9)
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QP9>
>
> In support of these activities, the group will: (2QPA)
> <http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG#nid2QPA>
>
> • Maintain, as a community, a common upper ontology and a set of
> contexts and mid-level ontologies which will provide a mechanism
> for resolution of questions as to which concepts in which
> classifications are: identical to; different from but consistent
> with; or logically incompatible with, those of other classifications;
>
> Perhaps you could explain to me how this investigation via "adaptable 
> boundaries to capture the essence of scientific truth" will lead to 
> any of the above aims and objectives, which seem to me to be quite 
> material goals.
>
> demonstrated? you mean you want me to demostrate the relevance of
> philosophy to semantics? I am sure I have got a lot of catching up to
> do, and so do you
>
>
> There is absolutely no doubt that I would have a lot of catching up to 
> do if that were my aim, but demonstrating the relevance of philosophy 
> to semantics is such a broad goal as to be really ludicrous. It is 
> pretty much the same, by analogy, as demonstrating the relevance of 
> wetness to water - there is a hell of a lot that can be said about it, 
> but at the same time one knows them to be inextricably bound and not 
> needing demonstration.
> But you are avoiding the real issue which is how semantics can be 
> treated algorithmically, and that entails a very restricted sense of 
> semantics.
> From above:-
>
> the creation and use of knowledge classification and
> representation systems, especially as related to governmental
> activities.
>
>
> I do not credit (any) government with great philosophical or 
> metaphysical drive, but I do think there is a job to be done. As I 
> say, show me I am wrong.
>
> You say:-
>
> I think we should try not to mistake our own ignorance as other
> people'
> arrogance, especially when something does not appear relevant
> to us because we do not understand it and lack the appropriate
> references.
>
>
> But I think there is an arrogance here. You seem to want to play this 
> both ways. On the one hand I am stiff, formal, seek references and 
> quotes that might stiffle free discussion, and I intimidate, on the 
> other you tell me that actually I am ignorant and that i can't follow 
> what others are saying.
> Well I am telling you, you are failing to explain, you are failing to 
> make yourselves relevant and frankly, I think you are arrogant.
>
> Now, if we are talking philosophy, consider this:- 
>
> Charlotte asked: 
> What is Frege's puzzle? Why did he reject the metalinguistic
> solution and change to reference and
> sense? What is his second solution and does it work any better
> than the first?
> and Alex asked:
> I'm writing an undergraduate essay about Frege, which is, "Is
> sense a semantic property of singular
> terms?" I would greatly appreciate any help on this subject as it
> is very difficult and I don't understand
> it!! Thank you.
>
>
> Klempner's answer, delivered with refreshing clarity, a complete lack 
> of guile and a disarming straightforwardness can be found at this link.
> http://www.philosophos.com/Knowledge_base/archives_9/philosophy_questions_913.html
> It is highly relevant to this forum. As I suspect, from the point of 
> view of philosophy the semantic web is absurd because of the reduction 
> of the semantic value of names ( e.g. 'Bruce' or 'Geoffrey' in the 
> reference) to the object to which they refer. As yet, the enterprise 
> entailing "semantics" and machines is philosophically absurd, but i 
> don't think that's the discusion that will forward the aim of ONTAC, 
> nor especially important in the furtherance of those aims.
> Machine "semantics" is not a full bodied semantics, surely we know that?
> Why do I keep on refering to Klempner? Because I am slightly familiar 
> with his work and know he has made a life times work out of making 
> philosophy relevant and available to people, but without shirking 
> either the need for clarity or facing difficult issues.
> I am within my rights to make such an appeal for clarity and facing 
> the issues here as the least I would expect in dealing with this 
> complex subject matter.
> Adam
> 
> On 26/05/06, *Pdm* <editor@content-wire.com 
> <mailto:editor@content-wire.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Adam!
> Sorry thate conceptual freedom and loose language make you
> unconfortable. They too are necessary to research.
> I am not aware of any tight dialectic or rigid requirementes to
> post to
> this forum, but forgive me if I am mistaken
> Here I think we are trying to establish what is true, and and what
> constructs can best represent that. Not easy.
> I am not sure I have got the right language, but I did not think
> someone
> in this forum could be so stiff /
> Apols - PDM.
>
> /*
>
> *//*Speculation to the heretic, theology to the orthodox But the
> **dust
> of the **rose-**petal **belongs to the heart of the perfume-seller. */
> Ab_'l Fazl
>
>
>
>
> (continue not established dialectic)
>
> I think we should try not to mistake our own ignorance as other
> people'
> arrogance, especially when something does not appear relevant
> to us because we do not understand it and lack the appropriate
> references. It happens to all of us,.
> A post in an intersciplinary forum - unless a clear and stated
> pre-requirement - does not have to adhere to the specification you
> describe below to be a relevant contribution.
>
> >
> > Is the interlocutor contributing anything new?
>
> A new perspective? A new idea?A thought? Is this relevant in your
> dimension?
>
> > Are they offering a novel explanation that clarifies things for
> > people, maybe irrespective of their own level?
>
> Maybe they are just asking a question, that will in turn lead to an
> explanation...or is this not allowed ?
>
> > Do they draw on the accepted work of past experts who have built the
> > foundations to the field?
>
> Maybe they will in the next post, if you don not intimidate them too
> much....
>
> > Are their contribution pithy and to the point
>
> Depending what metrics . I dont think yours is, on this occasion.
>
> > Are they able to highlight explicit technical details in context and
> > with relevant examples?
>
> Maybe yes, or maybe no - but they are under no obligation to do
> so.Maybe
> if you ask politely......:-)
>
> >
> > If one is to speak of the foundations of the field I would expect
> > learned references to Frege, Russel, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Ayers,
> > Austin, Dummett, Grice and many others.
>
> Exactly, many others. How much time have you got? I am rather busy
> today
> but maybe next time
> What about if I just mention the ones that I am familiar with?Problem
> with that?
>
> > The point is that this is just not the forum for that, and what
> comes
> > across is inferior philosophy
>
> Are you talking about mine being inferior, or yours?
>
> > out of context of any established dialectic,
>
> Established? I do not see anything set in stone yet, sorry. And I
> do not
> do dialectics, sorry
>
> > foisted upon a reluctant audience.
>
> you dont have to approve of all the posts that you dont like -
>
> > I don't think that anyone in this forum has so far demonstrated the
> > relevance of the philosophical investigation to the activity of
> > typical participants on this forum.
>
> demonstrated? you mean you want me to demostrate the relevance of
> philosophy to semantics? I am sure I have got a lot of catching up to
> do, and so do you
>
> > That is not to say it isn't relevant, but to establish this you
> would
> > have to adhere to a strict and well thought out regime.
>
> Strict Regime? Ah, that's what you do, sorry I dont do too strict
> regimes these days.
> I think we need adaptable boundaries to capture the essence of
> scientific truth, but we can talk about it on a separate forum
> perhaps?
>
>
> > From that point of view there is a rational behind the BCNGroup.
> But I
> > remain sceptical. While Grice cuts to the quick, you may recollect
> > that he was notorious for a. succinct notation and b. a lack of
> > algorithms. b. simply wasn't part of his approach since he was
> > concerned with logical analysis. Unless the case can be made for
> > machine computation achieved on the basis of a broad logic but
> without
> > algorithms that can be reduced to binary logic then there seems
> to be
> > no immediate connection between these ruminations and the purpose of
> > this list. That means that the appropriate place for them is a
> > philosophical forum.
> > However, I think that they may well be shot down on such a forum.
> > Philosophers work hard at their statements, or else there is just no
> > point.
> > This is a taste of real philosophical dialectic, but open to
> anyone to
> > participate in (obviously a short extract, out of context):-
> >
> > I was hoping that someone with expertise on Islamic philosophy
> > would respond to a question which came in a whole month ago
> from a
> > Ms Zahedi, a PhD student. She wants to know how one might
> compare
> > the problem of essence in Frege (1848—1925) and the Islamic
> > philosopher Avicenna (980—1037). My only clue, from an utterly
> > impregnable article in the /Oxford Companion to Philosophy/ is
> > that one of Avicenna's 'two best-known formulations' is:
> >
> > *the ontological distinction between essence and
> existence, in
> > which the essences of existing entities cannot be
> explained as
> > actualized forms of their material potentialities without an
> > existing cause whose existence, while coexistent with the
> > caused and perceived essence, is prior in rank.*
> >
> > I have read this extract a dozen times, and still it makes about
> > as much sense to me as 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves
> did gyre
> > and gimble in the wabe'. The author of the article, a
> certain Prof
> > Hossein Ziai from UCLA, would evidently be the best person to
> > answer Ms Zahedi's question — assuming, of course, that Prof
> Ziai
> > knows somewhat more about Frege than I know about Avicenna.
> >
> > But I've a good hunch what this is about. The essence of a
> thing,
> > in Fregean terms, consists in the /concepts/ under which it
> falls.
> > If you take a physical entity, say, an elephant, there is an
> > open-ended list of concepts under which it might be classified:
> > '_is an elephant', '_weighs over two tons', '_lives at London
> > Zoo', '_likes apples' and so on. Suppose that you made up a long
> > list. If you showed someone the list, they could still ask,
> 'Does
> > this entity which you have described /exist?/
> >
> > Frege, following Kant, denied that existence is a concept under
> > which some thing might, or might not fall. Existence is not a
> > predicate.
> >
> > from http://www.pathways.plus.com/glasshouse/notebook/page72.html
> > And about what philosophers expect of one another :-
> >
> > Dummett has thought more deeply than most academic philosophers
> > about the fundamental questions of the philosophy of logic
> and the
> > philosophy of language. But his 'rules' theory of concepts is
> > wrong (in my view). Since most philosophers' theories are wrong,
> > that is the least serious criticism one could make of him as a
> > philosopher! The theory itself poses little threat, largely
> > because so few persons are able to really understand it! (myself
> > included, at least on some days).
> >
> > I did have the opportunity to put my objection to Dummett's
> > account of the mechanism of the criticism of concepts in
> terms of
> > changing the 'rules for use' directly to him at a seminar in
> > Oxford once. His response was along the lines of, 'I don't know
> > what to say about that.' It is a measure of his elevated stature
> > (the 'seminar' was more like a lecture audience packed with dons
> > and graduate students) that he could get away with that reply!
> >
> > from http://www.pathways.plus.com/glasshouse/notebook/page72.html
> >
> > I would say that, by any one's standards, this manner of
> expression is
> > open, appealing and intelligible. But it invites a thinking process
> > that doesn't quite fit in this forum, or any forum I am aware of
> with
> > a technical bent.
> > I do not think, by way of contrast, that the vague, obscure and
> > impenetrable qualifies for inclusion in this forum just because it
> > seems to be touching on issues addressed here by way of common
> > concepts such as ontology and so forth. I think it just
> qualifies as
> > bad philosophy with all the arrogance that implies.
> >
> > Adam Saltiel
> >
> > On 25/05/06, * Pdm* <editor@content-wire.com
> <mailto:editor@content-wire.com>
> > <mailto: editor@content-wire.com
> <mailto:editor@content-wire.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Azamat
> > thanks a lot for the interesting and detailed exposition
> below, from
> > which I learn
> >
> > Maybe because I have studied with a leading semiologist (
> Umberto
> > Eco),
> > but I would argue that what you refer to in parts of your
> definition
> > below woudl be best called semiotics (science of signes and
> > symbols) and
> > not semantics.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics>
> >
> > To me semantics is the meaning of words, and semiotis is the
> > meaning of
> > non verbal communication, ie signs and symbols
> > Please correct me where I am wrong,
> >
> > Paola Di Maio
> >
> > > Ken,
> > > Essentially determining the nature of meaning (and
> > significance), this
> > > matter is the core issue not only for a unified computing
> > ontology but
> > > also for the machine processed semantics, the key element
> of the
> > > semantic web. For signs (as the words of different languages)
> > must be
> > > related to concepts and ontological entities only by a
> many-to-one
> > > relationship: from the words of natural languages (or the
> symbols of
> > > formal ontology languages) to the concepts of the mind (the
> > constructs
> > > of knowledge machines) to the categories of ontology (the
> kinds of
> > > things in the world). As an example, consider the class of
> > > relationship, which can expressed by as many names as
> 'connection',
> > > 'association', 'link', 'reference', 'regard', 'tie',
> 'bond'; or
> > > indicated by as many verbs as 'to relate', 'associate', link',
> > 'link
> > > up', 'connect', 'tie-in', 'colligate', 'refer', pertain',
> 'concern',
> > > 'bear on', etc. Or, take the class of events expressed by
> as many
> > > words as 'happening', 'occurrence', 'occurrent',
> 'contingency',
> > > 'outcome', 'effect', 'issue', 'upshot', 'result', etc. For
> instance,
> > > the process (event) of fire is that significance which the
> name
> > 'fire'
> > > has when it denotes the natural phenomenon. There is a
> plenty of
> > > natural languages using their specific signs for this process,
> > > nevertheless having always the same signification, since
> the concept
> > > of fire is the same and the human experience is the same,
> > regardless
> > > of its numerous expressions in different natural or artificial
> > > languages: 'fire', 'Feuer', 'ogon', etc..
> > >
> > > So, semantic system may be constructed as a formal
> semantics or as a
> > > more comprehensive and consistent, real world semantics;
> namely:
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> > > *Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW
> > languages, XML,
> > > RDF, OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) +
> designation
> > > rules (the semantic function from the set of language
> > expressions into
> > > the collection of constructs)*
> > >
> > > *Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system + axioms
> (ontological,
> > > mathematical, formal logical) + designation rules + semantic
> > > assumptions (the reference function from constructs to
> real objects
> > > cum the representation function from constructs to the state
> > spaces of
> > > the world) (ontological entities).*
> > >
> > > Thus, unlike the formal Semantic Web, the real Semantic
> Web includes
> > > the correspondence (reification) rules from constructs to real
> > world
> > > entities (semantic assumptions), which parallels the semantic
> > systems
> > > of natural and social sciences.
> > >
> > > As a consequence, the Real Semantic Web (or the world wide
> > intelligent
> > > Web) as the pinnacle of ontological semantic technology
> involves a
> > > grand trio of knowledge domains making the Knowledge Trinity:
> > >
> > > 1. The world science of Ontology caring the real entities,
> > underlying
> > > constraints, principles, truths, and strategic rules;
> > >
> > > 2. Semantics managing the whole works of meanings;
> > >
> > > 3. Syntax doing business with languages, the signs, and
> the rules of
> > > meaningful constructions.
> > >
> > > As in the Holy Trinity, each member of the Knowledge
> Trinity has
> > its
> > > unique goal and role. The goal of ontology is to formulate the
> > overall
> > > patterns and fundamental laws of the universe, while its
> role is to
> > > set the world models, rules, and reasoning algorithms for
> advanced
> > > information technology. Syntax supplies the totality of signs,
> > marks,
> > > and expressions as formal or natural languages with their
> operation,
> > > formation and transformation rules. Semantics is aimed to
> provide a
> > > general theory of meaning relations between signs,
> constructs and
> > > things, assigning signification to syntactic structures
> and meanings
> > > to conceptual structures. So, semantics integrates the
> totality of
> > > signs, signals or symbols, the domain of knowledge, and
> the universe
> > > of ontological entities and relationships into a
> comprehensive
> > > knowledge and reasoning context (a unified ontology
> framework),
> > > serving as the world modeling framework for all sorts of
> emerging
> > > intellectual information and communications technologies.
> > >
> > > Azamat Abdoullaev
> > > http://www.eis.com.cy <http://www.eis.com.cy>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Received on Saturday, 27 May 2006 08:42:01 UTC

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /