On Levels of Definitions and the Semantic Web

Stijn made a couple of sharp points in a comment on the post How is a Definition Different from an Explanation? (Part 1) (http://definitionsinsemantics.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-is-definition-different-from.html).

He notes that there is a need for definitions to be short in certain circumstances, as when a user is scanning through a list. I think this is a good point. Users may be more in search mode when they are doing something like this. They want to know if the definition is close to some target they have in mind. Obviously, a full definition is not fit for such a purpose.

So we might have three levels of definition: (a) a one-liner, suitable for lists; (b) a one-paragraph, suitable for a quick read with some detail - and display on a screen with scarce real estate; and (c) the full definition, as an authoritative reference. I have no problem with the last one being very long and including pictures - certainly more than half a page.

The second point Stijn makes is about the Semantic Web, where there is a need for a "general purpose" description. I agree with Stijn that there is a problem here. The definition of a concept must include something about the concept system the concept is located in - such as relationships to proximate concepts. So if one concept can be placed in different concept systems, then the definition will change. A mortgage loan in a servicing system is not the same as in a loan origination system, and is not the same as in a securitization system. The Semantic Web may have an unspoken assumption of a single model of reality. This will cause problems if, as I maintain, one concept can be placed in many concept systems. It will lead to the frustration Stijn describes.

Where I disagree with Stijn is his equating explanation with description. These are quite distinct. There can certainly be descriptive definitions, and these are very common in natural science. But explanations are different.

Comments

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status, photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and add music play...

Hack WiFi Account From Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher

WiFi Phishing Attack With WifiPhisher Tool Wifiphisher is a security tool that mounts fast automated phishing attacks against WiFi networks in order to obtain secret passphrases and other credentials. It is a social engineering attack that unlike other methods it does not include any brute forcing. It is an easy way for obtaining credentials from captive portals and third party login pages or WPA/WPA2 secret passphrases. From the victim's perspective, the attack makes use in three phases: 1. Victim is being deauthenticated from her access point. Wifiphisher continuously jams all of the target access point's wifi devices within range by sending deauth packets to the client from the access point, to the access point from the client, and to the broadcast address as well. 2. Victim joins a rogue access point. Wifiphisher sniffs the area and copies the target access point's settings. It then creates a rogue wireless access point that is modeled on the target. It also sets up ...

The Problem of Pluto: What Is being Defined?

I wanted to return to the issue of Pluto, which has already been the subject of a number of posts. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a rich array of issues and problems when it undertook a definitional change that resulted in the demotion of Pluto to the class of "dwarf planets". The topic this time is what exactly did the IAU define? I was watching a PBS special on the status of Pluto a few days ago. It included scenes from a diner where the genial Neil deGrasse Tyson was asking customers what they thought about the new status of Pluto. The reponses varied, but the issue at hand was about whether Pluto was "a planet". The diners all thought that they were dealing with the general concept signfied by the term "planet". Yet there is reason to think they were mistaken. The IAU resolved (see http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/ ) concerning the following: "The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in o...

DOYLC

Search This Blog