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  

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

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 

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 


End of passive look‐and‐perceive 

Find useful invariants in the ﬂux of ac:on and 
events to construct the knowable world 

 
Towards

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 

ORGANISM                                                     SOCIETY 

Epistemic problem 

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 

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."


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 

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 . . . 

Thank you!    

Your ques(ons and comments, 
please 

(Case Study Follows) 


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 ? 

First dram schema for a birth cer:ﬁcate 

What is 
missing? 


Second dram schema for a birth cer:ﬁcate  


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 Stamper Workshop Organizational Semiotics

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Semantic Web Company

More from Semantic Web Company (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ronald Stamper Workshop Organizational Semiotics