|
The Language Fallacy
Fallacy
Believing and pretending that languages can be used, as a foundation, to effectively represent, model, manage, entitle,
and share knowledge, is the main language fallacy, in IT, today.
Flight
When considering flight, considering that most birds and many insects can do it, typically simply by spreading and moving
their wings to hop off a cliff, rock, or branch, is natural and obvious.
Unfortunately, and while it as clearly been inspirational, at least to human kind, jumping off a cliff, even when spreading
and moving our forward members, even if we properly cover them with feathers,
typically does not help human fly, let alone get to Mars. Much more is required, starting with detailed formal scientific
understanding of the natural phenomena at stake,
including, aerodynamics, propulsion, material and substance resistance and cohesion, biology, and much more.
Infrastructure
The surface view and the effective requirements are clearly two different sets of concepts, albeit somehow complementary.
Knowledge
Similarly, when talking and thinking about Knowledge, reasoning, and even AI,
the common assumption today is that language is the key and foundation.
This, even if languages are known to be the single biggest source of silos.
This language fallacy does not hold when looking at "the big picture".
Languages are fundamental communication tools, developed from having to communicate and share knowledge.
As such they can effectively be used in sharing knowledge.
They are not knowledge, they do not define knowledge, they do not support knowledge except partly when communicating,
and they cannot be effectively, and should not be, used as a foundation for managing knowledge, as they can only lead
to thin and restricted silos.
Languages
Like the cliff, the moving wings, and the feathers, at first, languages can seem like a natural knowledge carrier and
representation.
Accordingly, most knowledge-oriented activities today, including in AI and Ontology, are based on language syntax and
structure.
Many of these efforts, especially around Ontology, try to attach specific meaning to words and symbols (semantics), and
to define formal vocabularies to encapsulate knowledge.
Communication
Unfortunately, languages are used to help focus the receivers' minds to knowledge that they already have, often in such
ways as to foster the derivation of more knowledge.
In any case, knowledge is in the communicating parties' minds, not in the language. Most often the words that carry most
meaning are the vaguest like "thing" and "do".
Words do not have specific (e.g. absolute) meaning, it is all relative to the communication context.
Example
If one needs to pick-up a partner at the airport, but the car won't start, one may go to a friendly neighbor and say
"Hi, can I use your car for an hour, as I need to pick-up a partner at the airport?",
to receive an answer like "Sure, the keys are on the kitchen table. See you."
Two hours later, everyone is eating and drinking together, having a good time.
More Knowledge Shared Through Less Words
In this example, very little was said, but a lot of knowledge was used, implied, and shared. Language was used, but barely
carried any specific meaning.
A lot of meaning was implied, but it was not spoken.
More so, if one had tried to verbalized the shared meaning, the communication would most obviously have failed.
The communication worked because of the common context the communicating parties shared.
The minimal use of words contributed to the reciprocal acknowledgment of this common context.
Share Knowledge through Context Focuses
In other words, clearly, knowledge and languages are complementary, but very different, including in purpose, structure,
and operation.
Knowledge is a universal natural phenomenon, and languages are human defined arbitrary evolving conventions, designed
to help communicate about knowledge.
Languages are complex, but, with a simpler structure, knowledge is far more sophisticated, and universal.
When common contexts are understood, clever use of language can be a powerful way to share, or rather communicate about,
knowledge.
Location
Languages do not "carry" knowledge, as they are designed and used to focus or guide minds on sequences of existing knowledge
resources,
implying and helping receivers derive further knowledge resources.
Each human develops its own knowledge, from its previous knowledge,
guidance (e.g. communication, education) to help correlate,
and derive new knowledge, as well as through experience.
Requirements
Because of these major differences, and their implications, languages cannot be effectively used to represent and manage
knowledge.
More so, the language dependency on common context creates silos.
While these silos may help simplify communication, they clash with the generality of knowledge.
Something else is required to effectively represent and manage knowledge, something more universal, general, and encompassing,
while still providing and supporting unlimited specialization and qualification.
Now that we need Information systems to help us manage common and shared knowledge, these systems require an effective
knowledge representation and management infrastructure.
Communication systems can then be devised to share the knowledge managed by/through information systems, between systems,
between humans and systems, between humans.
Nature
The good news is that the required principles and knowledge architecture are there, in nature, ready for the picking,
understanding, as well as mapping and integrating at the basis of our information and knowledge management systems and
computing environments.
Understanding
Many seemingly unexpected solutions also naturally emerge from this effort and understanding,
including the knowledge entitlement required for effectively sharing knowledge,
and for collaboration, our greatest productivity tool.
Knowledge Architecture
First, the nature, architecture, and operation principles of knowledge, integral and fundamental logical components of
our universe and cosmos, need to be better understood.
Continue to
|
Knowledge