Re: SUO: Semantic interoperability
Frank,
When I mentioned logic, I intended it in a broader sense than
just a "machine representation":
Frank Farance wrote:
> Here was my note on the NCITS/L8 in response to Joe Christensen. In
> the usage below (which, I believe, serves Joe's purposes), agreement
> on "meaning" is not necessarily dependent upon a machine representation
> of meaning.
Logic was developed by Aristotle long before there was any machine
that could process it. By logic, he and his followers meant a precise,
highly stylized version of controlled natural language. The symbolic
logic that was invented in the 19th century used a more mathematical
notation, but it was also intended to be written and read by humans.
In the example I gave, I showed how you could take a vague statement
in English and replace it with a precise statement, also in English,
that could, if one wished, translate directly to a formal notation
such as CGs or KIF. All that could be done independent of any machine
or software tools that might process the representation.
> The ISO/IEC 2382 Information Technology Vocabulary (ITV) might be able to help you. The definition of "interoperability" is:
>
> 01.01.47 interoperability: The capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units.
>
> In short, "interoperability" means communication/ execution/ data transfer without knowing the nature of the implementations (e.g., the endpoints of communication, the execution environment, data repositories, etc.).
Both the ISO definition and the paraphrase are examples of what I
called "big fuzzy clouds" that sound good, but are too vague to support
systems that can actually "interoperate" -- i.e., process the same
data in logically equivalent ways.
I don't deny that those statements are useful starting points, but
a standard for interoperability must be stated in much more precise
terms to be useful.
> I got the following definition from "dictionary.com":
>
> se·man·tic (s-mntk) also se·man·ti·cal (-t-kl) adj.
>
> 1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
> 2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.
>
> I believe the construction "semantic" [dictionary.com] + "interoperability" [ISO/IEC 2382] would work well:
This is another big fuzzy cloud of words. It defines semantic in
terms of meaning, which is itself defined in terms of semantics.
Unless you have a good intuitive feeling for the subject, it doesn't
help in any way.
> semantic + interoperability: In the conext of or relating to *meaning*, the capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units.
>
> or shortened a bit:
>
> semantic interoperability: The capability to preserve meaning in communications, program execution, and data transfer among various functional units.
Again, this doesn't define meaning or give any criteria for what
it means to preserve meaning.
> In other words, the above definition should be compatible with "interoperability" when used in standards wording.
Again, sprinking a few words like "shall" into the mix might make
it look like "standards wording", but it won't make the definition
precise enough to enable two systems to operate in the same way on
the same data.
John Sowa