--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAKK1bf9GFCY6gD8F%2BZ0u8PVnOooqoufBHy4-PqRetudU5mfQ5g%40mail.gmail.com.
Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com> hat am 07.12.2021 10:13 geschrieben:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROQwVuFntYOddLyzd5UQaCGNLeZyksTwZeMXaSnMQuQ3ew%40mail.gmail.com.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/4e8d41032b1c4b789310c0eaaeac7e7f%40bestweb.net.
Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com> hat am 07.12.2021 11:36 geschrieben:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROQ5xrMSAQuP6CrThgCze3BFwbNHFNKgDLui3jBisTnifw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxRORYXRbYp8iiTtzpF6VvmxBDGe4sZj%2BztV_PTsuebAVvtg%40mail.gmail.com.
John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net> hat am 07.12.2021 00:20
> No. The word 'data' is more specialized than the word 'sign'. It does not include knowledge, since knowledge represents signs that are known.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/1763978950.992935.1638905622616%40email.ionos.de.
Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com> hat am 07.12.2021 21:37 geschrieben:
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5djr4piibApbthz5ZAeWvXo8x9TuPr5_s4OfmGoMo5uCA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CALuUwtCW0Gzdb0i4OO7bo_%3Dm%2B6SRreFojftw9gVEbcWNS0uJDA%40mail.gmail.com.
Dear Alex,
I don’t see how or why knowledge should be considered more primary than data. That says to me you are saying data are a kind of knowledge. Every definition or explanation of knowledge I’ve ever seen bases knowledge on facts and persistence. First, since data are signs, they include representations, a means for recording. Maybe knowledge is stored in our brains in a similar way, and there may even be some evidence to support this, but this is still speculative.
Data convey information (not knowledge, a priori) from their underlying meanings. Moreover, the underlying meanings aren’t necessarily facts, since each datum could be falsified (e.g., arbitrarily add 2 cm to every measurement of height), manufactured (not in the falsified sense – see below), or just poorly acquired (measurement error). We intend a datum to represent a fact, but it doesn’t have to. It seems to me a datum has to be a property of some object (real or imagined) to even have a possibility of being a fact. I can type the following token of a numeral, 5, and have it represent the number five. That’s a datum, but it isn’t a fact.
In statistical offices around the world, data have traditionally been collected via surveys. Response rates in these surveys have fallen for years, and much research has been devoted to account for those missing data. Sometimes these data are imputed, meaning they are added to records based on a statistical model. The issue is to make sure the resulting data don’t bias subsequent analyses. But, these underlying imputed data don’t represent facts, either.
Regards,
Dan
Dan Gillman
Information Scientist
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Survey Methods Research
2 Massachusetts Ave, NE
OSMR, Rm 5930
Washington, DC 21208 USA
Cell: +1.410.624.9582
Office: +1.202.691.7523
Email Gillman...@BLS.Gov
________________________
“Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who
commenced it, I’m against it!”
~ Groucho Marx
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Alex Shkotin
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 3:23 AM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [SOCIAL NETWORK] Re: [ontolog-forum] Data Ontology: Data/Information as Ontological Category
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of BLS. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please send suspicious emails as an attachment to SEC...@BLS.GOV.
William,
This is why for me "knowledge" looks more "primary" than "data".
And we talk mostly about a knowledge we can transfer by words - verbalizable knowledge. We use definitions to understand one another. Look at the screenshot of Lars's dissertation page [1] where ecphory is a basic term. But m-w.com does not have a definition for it [here]. This is a feature of Deep Science. Well, they have def for https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/ecphoria
"Medical Definition of ecphoria
: the rousing of an engram or system of engrams from a latent to an active state (as by repetition of the original stimulus or by mnemic excitation)"
And not all terms can be defined. then we use axioms to write their properties in connection with other primary terms.
But maybe I just do not understand Azamat's "prime" properly and it is not the same as my "primary":-)
Alex
[1]
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROSFtv52beVJv%2BCutZfGpS7jyn5DyV_iL09jJOwSh4SpEg%40mail.gmail.com.
>A speech act is a physical action that occurs in space-time. The content of that act is a >timeless abstraction.
Dear Dan,
Thank you for the useful answer. 10 years ago we proposed [1] and showed a way that all DB, Excel, etc. data (but BLOGs;-) should be converted to one or another natural language to become knowledge. From this I remember that data is knowledge - we just need to know how to read them:-)
For any data for humans, we need a rule on how to read it and understand it. All your examples are from this area as knowledge may be falsified, based on an error of measurement, or derived from a model.
But if we take two computers with data interchange or just a process writing a block of data on disk we may say that they exchange and process data without understanding.
The Turing machine has data on its tape, not knowledge:-)
The relationship between data, information, and knowledge is more subtle than I declared to Azamat:-)
But we always should check if this particular data for humans may be verbalized ("spoken loudly" J. Corcoran).
And I should look at Azamat's post carefully as at the beginning he cited JFS:
"An ontology is a specification (axioms and definitions) of every kind of entity that may exist in the domain of discourse." John F. Sowa
For me, this is important as we need one step forward to meet a formal axiomatic theory: theorems and proofs:-)
I should be more careful with m-w.com definitions! In Russian we say "опростоволосился"
Thank you,
Alex
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/SA1PR09MB8302CF047D15ADF0B5C7471A9E6F9%40SA1PR09MB8302.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
Abstractions, by their very nature, cannot be located in space or time. For example, consider "2 + 2 = 4". That fact was true before any humans thought of it.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/ab9417c4c9b24e6d97573f9df119580d%40bestweb.net.
Lars, I fail to see any reason why you insist on putting time-stamps on abstractions.
Lars: Before any human there were no facts,
You have to distinguish facts (propositions) from statements (utterances). A statement occurs at a particular time and place. But a fact is independent of time and place. In fact, there are infinitely many true propositions (facts) that nobody has ever stated, written, or observed.
John
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/d37df77c62aa4cdab97ad92a30821600%40bestweb.net.
I assumed Lars was asserting that there is no knowledge without a knowing agent, and furthermore assuming that the only knowing agents under discussion are humans, who are time-scoped, then so is knowledge.
This assertion has nothing to do with the realist assertion that there is a reality ("facts") independent of any knowing agent. I think most realists would agree that facts do not come in and out of existence based on propositions (made by knowing agents) that assert them.
Regards,
--Paul
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/d37df77c62aa4cdab97ad92a30821600%40bestweb.net.
Dear and respected colleagues,
Paul Tyson has it right. I was wondering how this discussion, that started with the distinction between data and information (knowledge was also present), degenerated into the old realism-nominalism dispute.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/3bc24959-51c3-bdeb-6c1f-b2ba33fd4302%40sbcglobal.net.
This argument is about “what X means by the term ‘data’”, and ‘data’ is a word that has many uses with many related meanings, some of which may be viewed as misuses by some people. We as a community need a word that means ‘signs’ that represent and can convey elements of (purported) ‘knowledge’ to (suitably literate) persons and/or (suitably programmed) automata. The word ‘data’ is often used with that intent (John argues that ‘data’ is a kind of ‘sign’), but Azamat’s usage is ambiguously stated. An individual datum does in fact ‘denote the information’ (the ‘element of purported knowledge’) it is intended to convey, at least as ‘denote’ is commonly understood; but the *word* ‘data’ means the ‘sign’ to some and the ‘information’ to others, and many people don’t really make the distinction between the sign and the information (which can beget the ‘semiotic error’: “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”).
In the words of Haim Kilov, “I won’t agree with anything you say unless you define your terms.” Azamat tried to define his terms. We can argue that his usage is uncommon and may therefore be misunderstood, and John is arguing that Azamat’s usage is inappropriate for this community. But the rest of Azamat’s thesis does in fact follow from his usage of the term. I would add only that ‘data’ (in Azamat’s sense) also includes misinterpretations, un- or ill-founded beliefs, and outright lies, which can be equally well represented by similar signs.
I would also caution John that the evolution of language changes the specific meanings of terms over time. What Julius Caesar meant by ‘data’ is primarily ‘gifts’. And ‘informatio’ is a Medieval Latin term for the process of forming knowledge, of creating a mental model of whatever, and it then extended to the things that do that, in much the same way that ‘representation’ refers to both the process and the thing employed in it. Language evolves.
-Ed
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'"
-- Lewis Carroll (C.L. Dodgson), "Through the Looking Glass"
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/4e8d41032b1c4b789310c0eaaeac7e7f%40bestweb.net.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/MN2PR11MB44624027FE7081FC290ACCFBBC759%40MN2PR11MB4462.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
Ravi: Lars - I do not have access to your book, but what you are describing implies that provenance, meaning at origin+extensions as bridge of thought is being held by an entity other than your own cognitive state at a given moment ...
- Knowledge is what’s in a human being’s brain. Full stop. No need to explore the what or how.
- Data are physical, objective, perceivable phenomena (including man-made marks/signs/symbols) that have no inherent meaning on their own (this is where people get tripped up and conflate “data” and “information”). Data just “are”; “meaning” necessitates having an interpreter.
- Information is: (a) the “stuff” obtained from data through interpretation by an interpreter based on their knowledge and the context in which the data is interpreted (why “a picture is worth a thousand words”) and added to/integrated with their knowledge; or (b) the “stuff” selected from knowledge and encoded into data by an author/creator/articulator/expressor (however elegantly or clumsily) for the purpose of conveying that selected bit of knowledge to an interpreter.
Different data can convey the same information. The same data can convey different information. Thus, they are not the same things.
Like I said, this is simple and there is likely a lot to argue with here, but for me and my purposes these are three clear distinctions that I find useful.
Bill Burkett
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/58f38f124da84bdc9d8b06971fad738a%40bestweb.net.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/58f38f124da84bdc9d8b06971fad738a%40bestweb.net.
Thanks for the response, John.
To the Data-Information-Knowledge mix you’ve added a fourth dimension: context. Context is (in my view) a necessary part of obtaining (or deriving or decoding or interpreting) information from data. Although I have/use simple definitions for data, information, and knowledge, those definitions are not a closed circuit – there are other factors involved.
In fact, there is yet another (fifth) factor that the semioticians out there will recognize (and I hope I grasp correctly): the “code” used to articulate and interpret the “data” (and thus send and obtain “information”). “Data” as physical marks/symbols is created based on a community-accepted sign system where the signs have conventionally understood with socially-constructed meanings – the “code”. The English language is the “code” we use here to communicate, and we all have very different contexts within which we interpret that code. (Leading to all the fun and vigorous discussions we have here. 😊)
Bill
--
John – your link didn’t work for me - http://jfsowa.com/talks/context.pdf - is it a problem on your site or local to me?
Thanks
Godfrey
Rightscom Ltd
Suite 1866, Kemp House, 152 City Road, London EC1V 2NX.
Direct contacts:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/DM6PR06MB40590EC4FCEEC2ADB8BF8FD591499%40DM6PR06MB4059.namprd06.prod.outlook.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/b262347a68c540dc810f46eb7a30f59a%40rightscom.com.