ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" Ed Barkmeyer Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:51:53 -0500 <47A34E29.4010409@xxxxxxxx>
 ```Avril Styrman wrote:    (01) >>> A large number of simple "X is Y" NL sentences gives a quite >>> good approximation that "X is a subclass of Y"    (02) And on urging from Pat Hayes, viz.: >> OK, if you believe this, find me some. Actual examples from the Web.    (03) Avril found: > 6 040 hits "tulip is a flower". > 56 200 hits "flower is a plant". > plant > flover > tulip    (04) There are also 1130 hits on "flower is a skunk".    (05) Ergo??? skunk > flower > tulip ???    (06) And there are 646,000 hits for the tuple (flower, is, skunk), againts 14,000,000 for "skunk" alone, which, per John Sowa's approach, tells us that skunks are related to flowers somehow, although perhaps 3 times less often than parties are related to celebrations.    (07) > In course of objectivity, we also get: > > 67 000 hits "plant is a flower" > 4 100 hits "flower is a tulip" > tulip > flover > plant > > The point is, that we do get all these very > easily, and after we have got them, we can > reason about them based on their relations.    (08) I am curious to know what system of reasoning Avril plans to employ. (Well, actually, I'm not that curious. :-|)    (09) Based on the apparently valid "relations": flower is a subcategory of plant (57,000 assertions) and plant is a subcategory of flower (64,000 assertions), even Lofti Zadeh's fuzzy reasoning would conclude that there is a very high probability that the concepts "flower" and "plant" are identical. Further, a search for "plant that is not a flower" produced NO hits. This seems to raise the probability to near certainty. Can we therefore conclude that there are no plants that are not flowers? On the other hand, we get 130,000 hits on (plant, "not flower"). What shall we make of that?    (010) I fully agree with Pat that the "unguided" analysis of unstructured text on the Web (or anything other than a carefully selected corpus) has not produced, nor is it likely ever to produce, anything useful as an "ontology".    (011) We must not, however, confuse this with the very good and effective work on knowledge acquisition from unstructured text that is "guided" by a reference ontology. That approach provides the search engine with a "starter ontology" that defines the principal concepts and relationships in the domain and then extends that knowledge base (by Bayesian analysis) by extracting and interpreting natural language from a broader corpus. Part of that process is to discard documents that don't seem to be consistent with, or closely related to, the reference ontology. In this way, the reference ontology provides a means for deciding whether a given use of a term is likely to have the same sense as the use in the ontology. (And it doesn't involve an explicit concept of "context" -- the context is the other concepts and relationships in the reference ontology.)    (012) So, if we start with an ontology that tells the engine that a flower is a part of a plant, and not necessarily of every plant, and that a skunk is an animal, and that the intersection of plant and animal is empty, we will get much better results from the examination of the corpus delivered by the Google searches above.    (013) Of course, if we start with a Creationist ontology, our engine will also reject all documents about "evolution" that reflect the Darwinian theory. And similar things will happen to conflicting scientific theories of astrophysics. The guided engine will treat the reference ontology as "divine revelation". But we have to crawl before we walk. We have by no means perfected even the guided analysis techniques. After we are comfortable with understanding natural language text based on reference ontologies, we can start dealing with belief, evidence, argument, and contradiction. The problem with raw analysis of the Web as a corpus is that we are immediately confronted with all of those, and the thousand other shocks that natural language is heir to.    (014) -Ed    (015) -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694    (016) "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (017) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (018) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Azamat Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Sharma, Ravi Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Avril Styrman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Avril Styrman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Ed Barkmeyer <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Ed Barkmeyer Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Sharma, Ravi Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Randall R Schulz Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Randall R Schulz Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Francis McCabe