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

[adasal <adam.saltiel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Further Azamat this is a most terrible sentence:-
> It must be clear even to the most obstinate researchers that to build the
>   > real life knowledge machines [ontological semantic  technology]
>  
"It must be clear even to the most obstinate researchers - condescension at it height.
"to build the real life
knowledge machines" - I have a terrible feeling you are trying to
suggest a *life like* knowledge machine. You suggest it by elision.
What is a real life knowledge machine, the term is non-sensical. People
are building what they are building, in some circumstances requirements
are limited, in others more comprehensive. I would very much like to
learn of such efforts, successes and failures alike, what I don't want
is this incessant carping from the sides that destroys any sense of
what this forum might be for.
"knowledge machines [ontological semantic
 technology]" the stuff in brackets, more non-sense that adds not
one jot to what you are saying, but may add to your sense of self
importance.
 
Adam

On 26/05/06, Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Azamat wrote:
> Your questions are well justified and welcomed. For it must be recognized
> that the whole enterprise of semantic technology is an otiose undertaking
> and expansive academic mystification without understanding of the nature
> of meaning, its critical dimensions, mechanisms and algorithms of
> representation in computable forms.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing, but do you realize that this translates
into "Everyone engaged in semantic technology research doesn't have any idea
what they are talking about"?  Moreover, other of your posts translate
pretty directly into: "I, on the other hand, Azamat, have it all figured
out."

In fact, I think a lot of folks around here are quite easily as smart as you
and know quite well what they are doing and what they are up against.  You,
on the other hand, often seem to me to be a bit confused.  Notably, here is
a claim you've made several times:

> It must be clear even to the most obstinate researchers that to build the
> real life knowledge machines [ontological semantic  technology], it is
> necessary to review as inherently defective the formal semantic system of
> functional logic and so-called 'formal ontologies', somehow managing to
> miss the whole real universe of things and relationships:
>
> Formal Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (the SW languages, XML, RDF,
> OWL) + axioms (mathematical or formal logical) + designation rules.
>
> In fact, the large enterprise of semantic technology postulates the real
> semantic system of unified ontology:
>
> Real Semantic System = sign (symbol) system (languages, natural and
> artificial; data systems, static and dynamic) + axioms (ontological,
> scientific, mathematical, and formal logical) + semantic assumptions
> (signification rules).

But just what is it you are castigating here?  *No one* thinks that a merely
formal semantic system with only mathematical or formal logical axioms is of
any use.  Rather, a useful formal ontology uses a formal (hence, artificial)
language -- maybe OWL, if they need tractable reasoning, some flavor of full
first-order logic if not -- to write "real" ontological, scientific,
mathematical and formal logical axioms.  Simply put, most everyone engaged
in semantic technologies is attempting, successfully or not, to build real
semantic systems in your sense.

Seems to me that your version of "semantic technologies is nothing but a
strawman here.

Regards,

Chris Menzel

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (01)