----- Original Message -----
> >
> But what seems a key issue is
the boundary between the text/manuscript
> in which it appears and the
greater sphere of all of one's knowledge.
> >
> When the gap becomes a chasm
(trying to use all of society's collected knowledge
> to interpret single
sentences, the problem becomes too intractable (I submit).
RHM>
It may require a lot of knowledge, but surely
not all knowledge.
You need to identify and name the knowledge.
mKR provides one way to do that:
at context { sentence;
};
Just think of the context as a
large footnote -- required for all sentences.
>
>
Sincerely,
> Rob Akscyn
>
********************
>
SB>
>>
>> However, my
suggestion revolved round the question of what knowledge one
>> brings
(and might be expected to bring) to understanding a statement. For a
>>
worked example, I return to "Amy Winehouse is the apotheosis and nadir
of
>> post-modern femininity".
>>
>> Obviously, the
formalization and evaluation of such a phrase is outside the
>> remit
of this forum. However, the fact that there is an outside implies
that
>> the scope needs demarkating in some way. Historically, this
seems to have
>> been done by insisting on the properties of formal
representation, that is,
>> what is considered to be an ontology.
However, for external comprehension,
>> that boundary also needs to be
articulated in terms of the relation between,
>> on one hand,
formalisations which (confusingly) use natural language terms
>> as
labels and on the other, natural language, which does not have a
formal
>> semantics, and, in fact, thrives on ambigity, allusion and
connotation.
RHM>
I think John Sowa has the right idea -- use
controlled natural
language.
mKR is my attempt to create an
appropriate language.
>>
>> Having this distinction between
ontologies and natural language clear
>> expressed would help
enormously in set the right expectations about what can
>> be delivered
by the semantic wed in general, and ontologies in particular.
>> Over
to you.
>>
>> Sean Barker
>> Bristol,
UK
>>
>>