Books
in black and white
Main menu
Share a book About us Home
Books
Biology Business Chemistry Computers Culture Economics Fiction Games Guide History Management Mathematical Medicine Mental Fitnes Physics Psychology Scince Sport Technics
Ads

the semantic web a gide to the future of XML, Web Services and Knowledge Management - Daconta M,C.

Daconta M,C. the semantic web a gide to the future of XML, Web Services and Knowledge Management - Wiley publishing , 2003. - 304 p.
ISBN 0-471-43257-1
Download (direct link): thesemanticwebguideto2003.pdf
Previous << 1 .. 79 80 81 82 83 84 < 85 > 86 87 88 89 90 91 .. 116 >> Next

In Example 2, you ask the same question—Who is the best quarterback of all time? —but the response made to you by the other person as represented at the syntactic level (Level 1) is "Some quarterback." The literal meaning of that answer is represented at the semantic level as There is some quarterback. The pragmatic level (Level 3) describes the pragmatic infelicity or strangeness of the responder's response; in other words, either the person doesn't know anything about the answer except that you are asking about a quarterback, or the person knows but is giving you less specific information than you requested, and so, is in general not to be believed (this latter condition is a pragmatic violation).
9See the KIF [KIF] or Common Logic [CL] specification.
10See Singh (2002).
Understanding Ontologies
203
Table 8.2 Natural Language Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics
EXAMPLE 1: YOU ASK: "WHO EXAMPLE 2: YOU ASK: "WHO EXAMPLE 3: YOU MAKE
LANGUAGE LEVEL IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME?" IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME?" STATEMENT: "THE BKFKHDKS IS ORANGE."
3) Pragmatics: Intent, Use (speech act) Answer to your question: “Who is the best quarterback of all time?" Answer to your question: “Who is the best quarterback of all time?" Observation
'Pragmatic anomaly:
2) Semantics: Meaning
The former San Francisco quarterback named Joe Montana
Either the person doesn't know anything about the answer except that you are asking about a quarterback, or the person knows but is giving you less specific information than you requested, and so, is in general not to be believed (this latter condition is a pragmatic violation).11
There is some quarterback.
Something named or characterized as the “BKFKHDKS" is a nominal (so probably an entity, but uncertain whether it is a class- or instance-level entity), and it has the color property value of orange.
(continued)
uThis is a violation of the so-called Gricean conversational (i.e., pragmatic) maxim of cooperation (Grice, 1975): the "implicature" (i.e., implication) is that you know what you are talking about, and you understand the level of detail required to legitimately answer the question, and so, if you reply with something more general than the question asked (e.g., here, restating the given information), you either do not know the answer and are trying to "hide" that fact or you do know the answer and are trying to "mislead."
204
Chapter 8
Table 8.2 (continued)
EXAMPLE 1: EXAMPLE 2: EXAMPLE 3:
LANGUAGE LEVEL YOU ASK: "WHO IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME?" YOU ASK: "WHO IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME?" YOU MAKE STATEMENT: "THE BKFKHDKS IS ORANGE."
1) Syntax: Symbols, Order, Structure The answer: “Joe Montana" The answer: “Some quarterback" The statement: “The BKFKHDKS is orange"
Listing 8.2 displays an example of two messages between intelligent agents in the FIPA agent framework (highlighted in bold are the two message types). The first message is a request by Agent J to Agent I for the delivery of a specific package to a specific location. The second is an agreement by Agent I to Agent J concerning that delivery; it agrees to the delivery and assigns the delivery a high priority. Table 8.3 displays the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels of the two agent messages. In Table 8.3, the Request and the Agreement actions, respectively, are only represented at the pragmatic level (Level 3); you'll note that at both the syntactic and the semantic levels (Levels 1 and 2), the description is nearly the same for both Examples 1 and 2. It is only at the pragmatic level (indicated in the FIPA message by the performative or speech act type keyword request or agree) that there is any distinction. But the distinction as represented at the pragmatic level is large: Example 1 is a request; Example 2 is an agreement to the request.
(request
:sender (agent-identifier :name i)
:receiver (set (agent-identifier :name j))
:content
"((action (agent-identifier :name j)
(deliver package234 (location 25 35))))"
:protocol fipa-request
:language fipa-sl
:reply-with order678)
(agree
:sender (agent-identifier :name j)
:receiver (set (agent-identifier :name i))
:content
"((action (agent-identifier :name j)
(deliver package234 (location 25 35)))
(priority order678 high))"
:in-reply-to order678
:protocol fipa-request
:language fipa-sl)
Listing 8.2 FIPA agent messages: Request and agree.
Understanding Ontologies
205
Table 8.3 Intelligent Agent Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics
LANGUAGE EXAMPLE 1: AGENT IS REQUESTED TO PERFORM AN ACTION EXAMPLE 2: AGENT AGREES TO PERFORM AN ACTION REQUESTED BY
LEVEL BY ANOTHER AGENT ANOTHER AGENT
3) Pragmatics: Intent, Use (speech act) Agent J Requests an action by Agent I and the content is identified by order678. Agent I Agrees to action requested by Agent J and the content is identified by
2) Semantics: Meaning
1) Syntax: Symbols, Order, Structure
Agent J's action is about the delivery of a specific package package234 to a specific location identified by 25 35.
Previous << 1 .. 79 80 81 82 83 84 < 85 > 86 87 88 89 90 91 .. 116 >> Next