Re: [ontac-forum] Semantics (1, 2, and 3), Ontology and Semiotics

[Adrian Walker <adrianw@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris --

At 01:58 PM 5/28/2006 -0500, you wrote (in reply to a post criticizing
RDF semantics)

.... And thus your central confusion.  You think that a formal
semantics for
a formal language is somehow a complete characterization of the
semantical purposes to which the language is put.  In fact, such
a
semantics is only a rigorous formal model of the general semantical
properties of the given language.  It provides in particular a
precise
characterization of the manner in which the meanings of complex
expressions are determined by the meanings of their syntactically
simpler parts.  But such a formal semantics is in general
almost
completely silent on the natures of the entities which the language
can
be used to characterize. 

I agree.  Let's try to take this one step further.

Someone pointed out at a meeting a while back the irony that
"semantics" is one of the most ambiguous words that we use when
talking about ontologies and the like.  (Perhaps the ambiguity is a
plus for funding, but a minus for productive technical 
discussions?)

I have made a modest attempt to start clearing out the ambiguous
underbrush by suggesting the terms:

   Semantics 1   Interleaving of metadata with data,
e.g. as in RDF

   Semantics 2   what conclusions a reasoning engine
*should* be able 
                        
to infer from any set of rules and facts

   Semantics 3   the meaning of English concepts at
the author- and user-interface
                        
of a system.

There's more about this in [1,2].

 From a practitioner point of view, the three kinds of Semantics have to
"play nicely"  together in one system, e.g. as in
[3].

If one takes this admittedly unconventional point of view, it seems at
least to help to keep the history of philosophy and AI in
perspective.   One can then start to focus on more recent
technical issues, such as how to be more ambitious about robust
processing of natural language without falling off the
"AI-complete" cliff.

What do you think?

                                  
Cheers,  -- Adrian


[1] 
http://www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html

[2] 
http://www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf

[3]  Internet Business Logic  -- 
http://www.reengineeringllc.com



Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English 
Online at
www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029




_________________________________________________________________
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)