Re: SUO: RE: Re: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
The analogy of the SUO task with dictionary making is suggestive, but we
shouldn't forget the disanalogies. Ordinary language dictionaries use a
wonderful variety of means to convey word senses (including usage examples,
and conveying some sense of context). But they don't use the various
technical means of definition which logicians use; more generally, they
don't aspire to the varieties of technical definition of words which experts
use.
The perennial question is: why should we use your definitions and not mine?
(I suppose that is the question which legislation is supposed to address.)
The related issues are that inference is sensitive to (1) the order in which
definitions and statements are made or used, and also (2) to the contexts in
which the definitions and statements are applicable or not. (How will
legislation address this?)
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederick N. Chase" <fnc@mitre.org>
Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 08:48
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Re: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
>
> Tom Johnston wrote:
>
> >.................
> >
> >Dictionaries are a good example of how I think legislation properly
works.
> >.......................
> >
> I think this is a good observation.
> And in that regard maybe someone can explain and elaborate on the
following.
>
> http://www.academie-francaise.fr/role/index.html
> Aujourd’hui, elle agit pour en maintenir les qualités et en suivre les
> évolutions nécessaires. Elle en définit le bon usage.
> Elle le fait en élaborant son dictionnaire qui fixe l’usage de la
> langue, mais aussi par ses recommandations et par sa participation aux
> différentes commissions de terminologie.
>
>
>
>
>
>