Ronald Stamper Workshop Organizational Semiotics

A Pragma(c Web Workshop  Ronald Stamper  stamper.measur@gmail.com  Pragma(cs in a Semio(c Framework  built on a Seman(c Theory  based on a Presen(st Ontology of Actualism  leading to the concept of Ontological Dependency  and a Seman(c Normal Form with Seman(c Temporal DB  ¿ able to support an Open Common “Ontology” ?  with pragma(c tools for web discourse           ﬁnally a         SMALL CASE STUDY   © Ronald K Stamper 2009  I‐SEMANTICS '09 GRAZ  

SEMIOTIC FRAMEWORK      seman:cs of “informa:on”  Human Informa:on Func:ons (neglected)           SOCIAL WORLD: norms, law, culture,            aWtudes, values, beliefs commitments,   norms  EFFECTIVENESS  PRAGMATICS:  inten(ons, communica(ons,         conversa(ons, nego(a(ons          sign‐tokens       SEMANTICS: meaning, significa(on, denota(on,       connota(on, validity, truth‐falsehood        sign‐types                   Technical PlaLorm (dominant)         SYNTACTICS: formal structure, logic,      sign‐types  EFFICIENCY    language syntax, so[ware, data, files         EMPIRICS: paern, variety, noise, entropy,      populaDons of       channel capacity, redundancy, efficiency codes    sign‐tokens     PHYSICAL WORLD: signals, traces, hardware, speed,           energy and material consump(on, info economics    sign‐tokens  Semio(c Framework  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH TO IS AS A HUMAN SYSTEM  – LAW TO ‘PROGRAM’ PEOPLE  A 1m shelf of legal norms gives rise to the huge DSS bureaucracy Via 400, 5cm books of clerical codes (info flow) for 20% of the norms of which 10% can be + automated – requiring programs and piles of documentation Why not formalise 2% of those legal norms and generate the systems directly? © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

INFORMATION FIELD MODEL  Norwich City COMPANY ABC Ltd Overlapping groups of people  City Council sharing norms define  informa(on fields  COMPANY XYZ Ltd Accountany New methods  profession define a system  of norms  : Informa(on fields defined by shared norms Norms determine the signs /  attitudes action norms informa(on requirements  interpretation expression environment Current focus on  signs observation sign movements  and  transforma(on   © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

KEY PROBLEMS IN THE HUMAN INFORMATION SYSTEM   role of signs in rela:on with norms   meaning of “meaning” and hence   nature of reality    responsibility for linking data and reality   history and Dme when things exist   The law points the way   it requires evidence, both material and verbal from witnesses           especially evidence of inten:ons              THESE CONCEPTS ARE NOT OPTIONAL EXTRAS   BUT OBLIGATORY FOR SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ANALYSES    Between © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

Percep(on and meaning  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

AN ENGINEER’S ONTOLOGY  if <SIGN> denotes <THING>  then TAKE ME BY THE HAND and SHOW ME  if successful  I’ll accept that the <THING> EXISTS  This ontology appears restric(ve  but  it is not  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

AFFORDANCES  ‐  Perceptual Norms  What does the world consist of (our ontological assump:on)?  Gibson’s theory of  invariant aﬀordances    organisms perceive the repertoires of behaviour that    enable them to survive physically    we create our social reality with norms deﬁning   addi(onal invariant repertoires of behaviour          EXAMPLES:  towards, cup, copyright  Actualism – an ontology for engineers  1)  No reality without a knowing agent  2)  No knowledge of the world without ac:on  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

End of passive look‐and‐perceive  Find useful invariants in the ﬂux of ac:on and  events to construct the knowable world    Towards © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

Ontological Dependency                     Syntax of Norma        of each affordance upon its antecedents  Gibson’s theory suggests a formal Syntax                                              for norms and affordances  AGENT affordance                John ball  When an Agent realizes an affordance it becomes a modified Agent:  (AGENT affordance1) affordance2        John ball throw           with one direct antecedent  Two coexis(ng realiza(ons may afford other ones:  AGENT affordance1  while AGENT affordance2    John ball while John bat  affords another one :  AGENT (affordance1 while affordance2) affordance3                       John (ball while bat) hit           with two direct antecedents  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

© Ronald K Stamper 2009 

ORGANISM                                                     SOCIETY  Epistemic problem  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

Seman:c Normal Form  (vs. OO, ER, Rela:onal . . . Models)  GEOMETRY   SURROGATE         STRUCTURE  COLLATERAL $ Surrogate number  BRANCHES s Universal affordance  1 Antecedent‐1  Root 2 [Antecedent‐2]  STEM affordance BRANCH agent + Start    COLLATERAL ‐  Finish    BRANCHES @ Authority for start  &  Authority for finish  THE RULES  affordance = invariant repertoire of behaviour (NOT data item)  affordance only exists during  co‐existence of all those in its stem  maximum of two direct antecedents per affordance  represents the here‐and‐now, the only (me we can know directly   past and future (mes constructed using signs (informa(on)                             PRESENTISM  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

PRESENTISM’s CHALLENCE EVADED  Berkeley's ontology: God perceives all Satirised in the limerick: There was a young man who said "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." Ronald Knox replied: "Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the Quad And that's why this tree Will continue to be Since observed by Yours faithfully, God." © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

© Ronald K Stamper 2009 

Gibson:  Direct Percep:on of Material World  Isolated Agents Build Separate Reali:es  Human Society enables us to share experiences  and build a shared reality  This largely indirectly perceived world exists  through shared perceptual norms,  the social invariants equivalent to Gibson’s  aﬀordances for the material world,  for which Society at large is the perceiving  Agent  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

INTRINSIC SURROGATE ATTRIBUTES  (not op:onal extras)   •  $ Surrogate number  •  s Universal aﬀordance  •  1 Antecedent‐1  •  2 [Antecedent‐2]  •  + Start                •  ‐  Finish    •  @ Authority for start     KEY TO PRAGMATIC  •  &  Authority for ﬁnish        STATUS         @ & =  comm. act (document), norm, agent . . .  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

CASE STUDY ON PRAGMATICS  A bureaucra(c story with a dash of  romance  •  some dra[ schemas  •  how implemented  •  problems raised  •  value of canonical schema  •  ¿ open source schema possible ?  •  ¿ what issues should we inves(gate ?  •  ¿ are these tools suitable ?  © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

First Order Predicate Logic / Norma  x acquires British citizenship by section 1.1 on date y = A(x,y) x is born in the U.K. = B(x) x was born on date y = D(x,y) y is after or on commencement = C(y) B(x) & D(x,y) & C(y) then A(x,y) UK 1981-Ch28.S1.1: start of (citizenship (x, Britain)) = start of (x) while in (x, UK) while in force (UK 1981-Ch28) start authority of x = UK 1981-Ch28.S1.1 Britain UK 1981-28 Section 1.1 in force Normbase  nation statute section SURROGATE         calendar $ Surrogate number  Society territory s Universal aﬀordance  time zone day 1 Antecedent‐1  country #date 2 [Antecedent‐2]  UK + Start    in ‐  Finish    citizenship @ Authority for start  &  Authority for ﬁnish  person © Ronald K Stamper 2009 

Ronald Stamper Workshop Organizational Semiotics

0 comments

Notes on slide 1

Favorites, Groups & Events