RE: A Light Rant On Ontological Commitment

[Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>]

> 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.  

Not neccessarily. Speech acts can determine intent. 

 
> 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.  

Michael Covington: <http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc/>: "On Designing a Language
for Electronic Commerce" and "Speech Acts in Electronic Communication, KQML,
and X12", both available at the url. And Scott Moore's FLBC:
<http://www.samoore.com/research/flbc/flbc.php>


> An ontology is just a document.

An ontology can be put into document form, yes.

-Bill

-----
Bill de hÓra  :  InterX  :  bdehora@interx.com