[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A Light Rant On Ontological Commitment
- From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:31:22 +0000
> 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:
> An ontology is just a document.
An ontology can be put into document form, yes.
Bill de hÓra : InterX : firstname.lastname@example.org