You consistently said mapping from WordNet to xxx.
Do you realize that OpenCyc is mapping from its
concepts to WordNet? (01)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview (02)
> A 'synset' is just a mechanism for representing what the author hopes is
> relatively well-defined concept. Any ontology that has pointers to words
> in a human language will form the basis for a 'language that uses
> if the ontology allows pointers to more than one word for each represented
> WordNet is used that way by NL researchers, but its shortcomings in that
> role have been much remarked. It was originally intended to represent
> cognitive insights into the use of language, but was pressed into service
> for NL research because it was free and was fairly comprehensive for
> English, and had a hierarchical structure unavailable in any other free
> resource at the time it was first used. I think that NL research needs a
> reworked 'WordNet' with the concepts better structured for automated
> inferencing. That is one of the functions that I hope the COSMO (or some
> successor) will serve, so I am adding in pointers to WordNet synsets as
> as the LDOCE defining vocabulary, but there is no simple mapping of a good
> ontology to WordNet because the WordNet structure is not based on
> of inheritance; so a simple 'mapping' of WordNet to an ontology like Cyc
> SUMO is of limited usefulness, and does not correct the problems.
> Efforts to rework the WordNet have been made by groups such as Ed Hovy's
> Martha Palmer's and Nicola Guarino's, but they haven't yet been extended
> create the ontologically correct variant of the WordNet. That's a lot of
> work. What I am trying to do is to create a version of COSMO that at
> maps the basic words representing the semantic primitives (and some other
> useful basic concepts), using the LDOCE defining vocabulary as a plausible
> starting list that includes most of the semantic primitives. This will
> allow experiments with NL, confined to the basic vocabulary, but aimed at
> deeper level of semantic representation than is possible with the WordNet.
> This is one tactic I want to use to approach the goal of getting a
> to have a meaningful conversation with a 6-year old.
> Among the problems with the current WordNet, from an ontological
> (1) in linguistic use a single word is often used to represent some
> general concept and also a more specific concept. WordNet does not allow
> word to be a hypernyms of itself, so they cannot represent such relations.
> (2) different synsets containing the same word are often
> in logical meaning. The NL people refer to this by stating that WordNet
> 'too fine-grained' - a polite way of saying they can't figure out the
> differences in meaning between some different synsets (and I can't either,
> so I conclude that they are in fact logically identical or largely
> overlapping in meaning).
> (3) some synsets include more than one meaning that are clearly
> distinguishable logically. This means that just aggregating WordNet
> will not create the hierarchy that is optimal for NLU.
> (4) the meanings, or parts of the meanings, of synsets that have no word
> common can also overlap or be identical.
> (5) the representation of an Event in COSMO will often map to both a noun
> and a verb (e.g. move and motion). The linguistic/syntactic distinction
> not necessary at the logical level, and is best left as a task for the NLU
> program to handle rather than the knowledge representation. In WordNet
> are different synsets.
> (6) the hierarchy is, in many places, not properly structured for
> inheritance of properties, and cannot be used for accurate logical
> But WordNet still represents a tremendous and useful effort, and is
> for NL at a shallow semantic level. It is a good start, but something
> similar with a more precise semantics is needed.
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> cell: 908-565-4053
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard H. McCullough
>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:11 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview
>> How about a language that uses synsets instead of words?
>> Do you know if anyone has researched that?
>> A synset is an equivalence class, similar to your
>> definition of proposition.
>> Dick McCullough
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > The simple reason is that mathematics of any kind (including symbolic
>> > logic) makes statements with sharp, absolute criteria of precision.
>> > (Even fuzzy logic and probability theory make precise statements
>> > about fuzziness and probabilities.) In the initial unsettled stages
>> > of research, such precision is impossible. It's also impossible to
>> > quantify the exact amount of fuzziness. That's why ordinary language
>> > is far better suited to the *development* of a theory than to the
>> > final statement of the theory.
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)