Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"

["Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gary,

  The question of identifying differences in fundamental conceptual representations would be most appropriately addressed by working with the conceptual defining vocabulary, and the COSMO hasn't reached the point where I could do such a test.  But it might be possible to get a feeling for how it could be done by using linguistic definitions and the linguistic defining vocabulary.  It might be an interesting exercise to work through an example on this list - with a distinctive title for the thread.

 

  The utility I use to check if definitions have words not in the defining vocabulary is in a zip file:

      http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/reference/ControlledVocabulary/checkdefs.zip

 

  This file should be placed in its own directory and unzipped there, as the included files will not be unzipped into their own directory.

  There is a ".bat" file in there that will execute the Java program in Windows XP (I haven't tried it in other environments).  In the unzipped files there is a WinWord file "readmeCV.doc" that provides more information about this utility.  There are also two "defining vocabulary" files: "baseCV.txt" and "supplementedCV.txt".   To check a definition with this utility, one loads the desired defining vocabulary with the "use Dictionary File" button, places the definition in the top window, and presses the "Check Spelling" button.  If there are any unrecognized words, one may ignore them, change them or list them.

 

   The 'baseCV.txt' file was derived form the 2000-word defining vocabulary of the Longman's dictionary (They are on the Web).  Those 2000 words are entry words, and were expanded to include morphological variants and common derivatives such as "unX" for each "X" and "reY" for each "Y", checking to see if the derived words were actually real words.  The result was a 9000-word wordlist that can be used as a spelling-checker list.  The derivative macros created some unintended words that are real words but shouldn't be in the base dictionary.  They will have to be purged over time.

 

The supplementedCV is the same list of words, supplemented with other words, each of which is defined (recursively if necessary) by the baseCV.  The definitions of the words added to the supplementedCV are in the Excel file:

          SupplementalVocabularyDefinitions.xls

 

 

  The process then is:

  (1) create a definition in English of some concept: type or paste it into the upper window of the utility frame

  (2) choose the supplementedCV from the drop-down list and load it with the "Use Dictionary File" button

  (3) press the "Check Spelling" button.

 

  If all the words used are  in the supplementedCV, the message "All words recognized" will appear in the bottom message pane.

  If not, a pop-up message will appear with options.  To list the unrecognized words, press the "List Unrecognized Words" button.

 

 Those are the words you will also have to define via the baseCV in order to have the original definition be "recursively defined" from the baseCV.

 

 If we go through an exercise like that, carefully defining (in basic English) the terms we want to specify, that will make it easier to recognize where different but closely related concepts actually differ. 

 

Want to try?  Someone should suggest concepts that might be contentious or difficult to distinguish.

 

Pat

 

Patrick Cassidy

CNTR-MITRE

260 Industrial Way West

Eatontown NJ 07724

Eatontown: 732-578-6340

Cell: 908-565-4053

pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx

 

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:30 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"

Pat.

 

In discussing the foundation ontology to serve as the conceptual defining vocabulary, you proposed that it

"will in fact have the common starting points that allows one to show out

how even relatively fundamental concept representations differ from each other."

In an earlier message you also said,

"The feasibility is strongly suggested by the fact that such a principle
has already been used for over twenty years by some dictionary vendors,
who use a controlled "defining vocabulary" with which to define all the
words (ca 100,000) in their dictionaries.  Linguistic definitions of
specialized terms will often use words not in the base 2000-word
defining vocabulary, but the undefined words can themselves be defined
by the base defining vocabulary.  I did a test using the Longman's
defining vocabulary and defined 500 words (including 'DNA') not in the
base vocabulary and found that all of the definitions could be grounded
(recursively, as explained) on the base defining vocabulary, with the
need to add only two new words to the defining vocabulary itself
('dimension' and 'participant')."

Can you summarize what your starting points for this work on the

"base 2000-word defining vocabulary: is at this point?  Sounds like we

could then have a go at whether these might satisfy wether they can

"show out  how even relatively fundamental concept representations differ from each other."

 

Gary Berg-Cross

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Cassidy, Patrick J.
Sent: Wed 5/2/2007 3:32 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"

A comment on just one point from John:

When the ontologies being
> compared have no common starting point, proving incompatibility is
> not at all easy (unfortunately, proving compatibility is not so easy
> either!).

Ideally, the foundation ontology that serves as the conceptual defining
vocabulary will in fact have the common starting points that allows one
to show out how even relatively fundamental concept representations
differ from each other.  If you have any thoughts about what concepts
need to be represented to do that, please let us know!

Pat

Patrick Cassidy
CNTR-MITRE
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Eatontown: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)