[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Semantics

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Internet Business Logic <ibl@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 10:55:10 -0400
Message-id: <427790CE.4080700@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Duane --

Yes, dictionary definitions look circular.  But, as argued in yesterday's post, there is a small semantic- value-add that resides in the relations between words that the dictionary sets up.  This gets a bit stronger in Wordnet.

IMHO, there's even more semantic-value-add in relations between English sentences, as in syllogisms, and in the lightweight English sentences in the rules in our system [1].

For example, this approach allows a system to reason in lightweight English over the Federal Enterprise Ontology [2].

What do folks think of this?

                                              Cheers,  -- Adrian

[1]  Internet Business Logic, online at  www.reengineeringllc.com

[2]  http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/FeaReferenceModelOntology1.agent

Duane Nickull wrote:

Chris Menzel wrote:


Well, if a definition of a concept *does* make use of concepts that are
axiomatized in terms of concept being defined, then it is just a bad

This is what I wanted to explore.  Look at the english dictionary - it uses all the words that are defined in the dictionary to define the words in the dictionary. A great deal of care is taken to avoid direct inclusion of terms in circular references however most of the words defined by the dictionary are probably used in definitions of other words.

Is that really an ontology?  Are there formulas that state the number of levels a word must be reasonably not used in a set of definitions until it is used again?


1. A Company is a military unit, typically consisting of 100-200 soldiers

2. A Battalion is an army unit usually consisting of a headquarters and three or more companies

3. A Division is an military unit large enough to sustain combat

4. A Regiment is a military unit, larger than a company and smaller than a division

In the definition of Regiment #4, we have used words to explain it that were just defined themselves #1,3.  #2 is superfluous yet aids in providing semantics to some degree (or does it?).

Sorry to once again be the loose cannon ;-)


Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Internet Business Logic  --  online at www.reengineeringllc.com

Reengineering LLC,  PO Box 1412,  Bristol,  CT 06011-1412,  USA

Phone 860 583 9677     Mobile 860 830 2085     Fax 860 314 1029

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>