[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A Light Rant On Ontological Commitment
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:05:40 -0600
One problem is that the *intent* of language is
determined in the context of the culture from
which it emerges and within which semantics
evolve. A relationship of language to culture
(domain to environment) is a reciprocal
control over the evolution of the thing(s)
described. We must know both what is *meant*
(the semantic measure within the system)
and the *intent* (the semantic measure of
the sender to receiver). This becomes very expensive.
The punt is to measure behaviors. If the receiver
reacts as the sender expects, we can say the communication
succeeded and dispense with the *meaningful*
tests. It means what we make it mean.
Multi-lingual and muli-cultural are reciprocal
issues. We are typically better served as
you point out by dealing with the transaction/contract
level where we can make constraints testable
and predictable based on observable behaviors.
The ontological commitment cuts both ways:
responsibility for successes
and failures. Smart users measure the boundary
effects. They pay particular attention to
the boundaries of time (contract time) and interface
or protocol. They provide measures based
on the content type (event type determines
expected range of behavior).
An ontology is just a document.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Bill dehOra [mailto:BdehOra@interx.com]
Ontology merging is similar
(you're dealing with terms mainly): it'll work up to a point though (I think
transaction and contract ontologies can be merged in general). But even
creating one ontology is hard work.