Hi John,
Just in case you might have been commenting on the relationship
between SUMO and WordNet being simple, I agree. That alone is
insufficient, although, I think, necessary. Without broad coverage
of a large ontology and a very large lexicon, one will be left with
at best and interesting toy system that only explores individual
point issues in a large space.
For a description of some our ideas of the more complex issues
that also have to be tackled in relating language to logic (more for
others on this list than you of course, given all the excellent work
you've published in this area) one could look at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~adampease/professional/Brno.pdf> (01)
Adam (02)
At 10:01 AM 4/7/2006, John A. Bateman wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I also think it is good to be very explicit about what Adam and
>others have recently mentioned about the fact that mixing
>statements about linguistic terms and ontological considerations
>is a recipe for endless and fruitless debate. Ontology
>and language are subject to differing concerns. Unfortunately
>within work on ontology the relationship between ontology
>and language is often trivialized. One needs sufficiently
>solid bases in both areas to say sensible things. Precisely
>because of the issues of contextualization and interpretation,
>the links between any ontological categorization and
>linguistically motivated categorizations will have to
>be sophisticated and complex. One can do a lot with simpler
>relationships, but need then to be aware that one is
>then building particular contextualization decisions into the
>account.
>
>In our approach we have distinct organizations for linguistically
>motivated categorizations (the Generalized Upper Model) and
>ontologically motivated categorizations of the traditional
>kind (we work here with DOLCE a lot). *Both* organizations are
>subject to principles of ontological engineering however.
>We then try to *relate* the two using theory morphisms just as
>we would relate distinct ontologies/subontologies. This
>is the only way that we have seen of doing justice both
>to contextualization (because the morphisms that are constructed
>must be done so according to context
>in order to construe linguistic categorizations
>with sufficient flexibility) and to the contributions of the individual
>components. This is to take the explicit representation of
>the distinct nature of these kinds of organization
>considerable further than is commonly done.
>
>One further aspect we are considering is to
>place the linguistically-motivated categorizations within
>the DOLCE descriptions&situations framework: thus the
>linguistically motivated 'ontology' becomes a perspective
>on the ground ontology of, e.g., DOLCE.
>
>Getting the relation between ontology and language (and particularly
>formalized approaches to linguistic semantics) right is one of
>our main research goals and has been for a long time. Making
>this strand of discussion an activity in its own right would
>be of considerable interest to us therefore if others
>on this list are also so inclined.
>
>Best,
>John B.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>John Bateman
>http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/ontology
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (03)
----------------------------
Adam Pease
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|