Symbol Grounding for the Semantic Web

  • Anne M. Cregan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4519)


A true semantic web of data requires dynamic, real-time interopera-bility between disparate data sources, developed by different organizations in different ways, each for their own specific purposes. Ontology languages provide a means to relate data items to each other in logically well-defined ways, producing complex logical structures with an underlying formal semantics. Whilst these structures have a logical formal semantics, they lack a pragmatic semantics linking them in a systematic and unambiguous way to the real world entities they represent. Thus they are intricate "castles in the air", which may certainly have pathways built to link them together, but lack the solid foundations required for robust real-time dynamic interoperability between structures not mapped to each other in the design stage. Current ontology interoperability strategies lack such a meaning-based arbitrator, and depend instead on human mediation or heuristic approaches. This paper introduces the symbol grounding problem, explains its relevance for the Semantic Web, illustrates how inappropriate correspondence between symbol and referent can result in logically valid but meaningless inferences, examines some of the shortcomings of the current approach in dealing effectively at the level of meaning, and concludes with some ideas for identifying effective grounding strategies.


Ontology Alignment Semantic Interoperability Semantic Web Symbol Grounding 


  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., Fischetti, M.: Weaving the Web. Harper, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harnad, S.: The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D 42, 335–346 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mill, J.S.: A System of Logic. London (1843)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Narens, L.E.: All you ever wanted to know about meaningfulness. Scientific Psychology Series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pollock, J.T., Hodgson, R.: Adaptive information: Improving business through semantic interoperability, grid computing, and enterprise integration. Wiley Series in Systems Engineering Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublach, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors & Common Patterns. In: EKAW2006 Proceedings, pp. 63–81 (2004), Available at
  9. 9.
    Searle, J.: Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417–457 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language Guide. W3C Recommendation (10 February 2004), Available at Latest version available at

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne M. Cregan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.National ICT Australia (NICTA) 
  2. 2.CSE, University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations