The document discusses a semiotic framework for understanding human information systems based on semantic theory and ontological dependency, proposing a re-evaluation of how legal norms and information flow can be formalized. It incorporates concepts like affordances and pragmatics, exploring their implications on societal structures and shared realities. A case study illustrates the application of these principles through bureaucratic examples and the development of schemas for legal documentation.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Percep(on and meaning © Ronald K Stamper 2009

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. © Ronald K Stamper 2009

12. ORGANISM SOCIETY
Epistemic problem
© Ronald K Stamper 2009

13. 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

14. 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

15. © Ronald K Stamper 2009

16. 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

17. 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

18. Thank you!
Your ques(ons and comments,
please
(Case Study Follows)
© Ronald K Stamper 2009

19. 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

20. acceptance
Seman:c Temporal Data Base
Escape from here‐and‐now © Ronald K Stamper 2009

21. First dram schema for a birth cer:ficate
What is
missing?
© Ronald K Stamper 2009

22. Second dram schema for a birth cer:ficate
© Ronald K Stamper 2009

23. 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