Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind […] knowledge is all sort of knitted together, or woven, like cloth, and each piece of knowledge is only meaningful or useful because of the other pieces.
OneNote is an idea processor, a notebook, an information organizer — some even call it an "add-on pack for your brain." … a place for gathering, organizing, searching, and sharing notes, clippings, thoughts, reference materials, and other information. All your notes will be visible here — organized by notebooks, sections, and pages.
As you use OneNote and create more notes, you may want to organize your notes differently: If you find yourself creating a lot of pages for a topic, try dragging them into a new section If you find yourself creating many sections in one notebook, try putting some of them into a separate notebook Make navigation between notes more convenient by creating several notebooks at the top level, rather than putting everything inside one notebook
It's okay if this section gets big. You can drag the pages to other sections later, or just use search to find them in this section.
John Steinbeck, Sweet Thursday Suzy said, "You mean I'm fish?" "You're fish," said Fauna.
Alan Kay I don't know who invented water, but it wasn't a fish. –
The Semantic Web is an evolving extension of the World Wide Web in which the semantics of information and services on the web is defined , making it possible for the web tounderstand andsatisfy the requests of people and machines to use the web content. It derives from W3C director Tim Berners-Lee's vision of the Web as auniversal medium for data, information, andknowledge exchange .
When we try to understand the thought or discourse of others, the task can be divided initially into two parts: understanding what they are thinking or talking about and understanding what they are thinking or saying about it. My primary aim here is to present a view of the relation between what is said orthought and what it is said or thoughtabout . The former is the propositional dimension of thought and talk, and the latter is itsrepresentational dimension. The question I address is why any state or utterance that has propositional content also should be understood as having representational content. (For this is so much as to be a question, it must be possible to characterize propositional content in nonrepresentational terms.)The answer I defend is that the representational dimension of propositional contents should be understood in terms of their social articulation – how a propositionally contentful belief or claim can have a different significance from the perspective of the individual or claimer, on the one hand, than it does from the perspective of one who attributes that belief or claim to the individual, on the other. The context within which concern with what is thought and talkedabout arises is the assessment of how the judgments of one individual can serve as reasons for another. The representational content of claims and the beliefs they express reflect the social dimension of the game of giving and asking for reasons.
Chuang Tzu, ~320 B.C.E (Burton Watson, trans.) Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But what if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is there a difference, or isn't there?
A
B
we only state that
A
is B
. As Manuel DeLanda
notes, it is only theory-obsessed philosophies that can afford to forget about causal connections and concentrate exclusively on logical relations.
IsSubclassOf
but nothing to subclass. It's a wiki categorization
scheme on steroids, i.e., this is categorization, not classification. There are a number of difficulties with
this approach, including the complexity of the augmented wiki syntax; weak or absent metadata; a lack of
user-friendly schema documentation; the requirement of user expertise; lack of support for synonymous, homographic
and polysemous (multireferential) terms, and other limitations in the available classification schemes (where they
exist at all). Categorization terms or annotations are themselves often ungrounded, undefined, or when they are,
they force users into a predefined schema, often defined in a formal logic not otherwise followed by, related or
appropriate to the user-created structure, such as using set-theoretic language to describe the genealogical
relationships.
Gregory Bateson, Pathologies of Epistemology, Ibid. When you have an effective enough technology so that you can really act upon your epistemological errors and can create havoc in the world in which you live, then the error is lethal.
the key idea which connects model-theoretic semantics to real-world applications. […] Through the notions of satisfaction, entailment and validity, formal semantics gives a rigorous definition to a notion of "meaning" that can be related directly to computable methods of determining whether or not meaning is preserved by some transformation on a representation of knowledge. ( , §2)
Readers who are familiar with conventional logical semantics may find it useful to think of RDF as a version of existential binary relational logic in which relations are first-class entities in the universe of quantification. Such a logic can be obtained by encoding the relational atom R(a,b)
into a conventional logical syntax, using a notional three-place relationTriple(a,R,b)
; the basic semantics described here can be reconstructed from this intuition by defining the extension ofy
as the set{<x,z> : Triple(x,y,z)}
and noting that this would be precisely the denotation ofR
in the conventional Tarskian model theory of the original formR(a,b)
of the relational atom. (, §1.1)
First, it's not the Web that is monotonic (whatever that would mean) but the reasoning from Web resources that must be monotonic. […] Nonmonotonic reasoning is therefore inherently unsafe on the Web. In fact, nonmonotonic reasoning is inherently unsafe anywhere, which is why all classical reasoning is monotonic; this isn't anything particularly new. But the open-ended assumption that seems to underlie much thinking about reasoning on the semantic web makes the issue a little more acute than it often is in many of the situations where logic has been put to use in computer science. For example, if you are reasoning with a particular database of information, it is often assumed that the dbase is complete, in the sense that if some item is missing, then it is assumed to be false […]. But open-ended domains are not like this, and it is very dangerous to rely on this kind of reasoning when one has no license to assume that the world is closed in the appropriate way. If there were ever an open-ended domain it is surely the semantic web. […] The global advantages of monotonicity should not be casually tossed aside, but at the same time the computational advantages of nonmonotonic reasoning modes is hard to deny, and they are widely used in the current state of the art. We need ways for them to co-exist smoothly.
Semantic Web researchers […] accept that paradoxes and unanswerable questions are a price that must be paid to achieve versatility
HasIwiOf
and IsIwiOf
relations are subclasses of the Z39.19 This chapter looks at the semantic treatment needed to transform a natural language into a subject language. […] a subject language is based on a natural language but differs from it primarily in the semantic structures it uses to normalize vocabulary by setting up a one-to-one relationship between terms and their referents. The referential semantics of a subject language deals with the generalized homonym problem. It consists of methods for restricting term referents so that any given term has one and only one meaning. The relational semantics of a subject language deals with the generalized synonym problem and consists of methods for linking terms within similar or related meanings.
1. Anthropology, Cultural – Collected works. 2. Knowledge, Theory of – Collected works. 3. Psychiatry – Collected works. 4. Evolution – Collected works. I. Title. II. Series. [DNLM: 1. Anthropology, Cultural – collected works. 2. Ecology – collected works. 3. Evolution – collected works. 4. Schizophrenic Psychology – collected works. 5. Thinking – collected works. GN 6 B329s 1972a].
The basic intuition of model-theoretic semantics is that asserting a sentence makes a claim about the world: it is another way of saying that the world is, in fact, so arranged as to be an interpretation which makes the sentence true. In other words, an assertion amounts to stating a constraint on the possible ways the world might be. ( , §1.3)