On 4/29/09, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Try to stick to a classic dictionary, like Webster. Wordnet is usually short
> on adjectives, and most web resources just copy it.
> Besides, you have the reference to the original source. (01)
That's hard to do in the "modern age", however I did try both a paper copy of
websters dictionary and the websters.com page which linked me to this page: (02)
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=risible&search=search (03)
And this definition: (04)
ris⋅i⋅ble
/ˈrɪzəbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [riz-uh-buhl]
–adjective
1. causing or capable of causing laughter; laughable; ludicrous.
2. having the ability, disposition, or readiness to laugh.
3. pertaining to or connected with laughing.
Origin:
1550–60; < LL rīsibilis that can laugh, equiv. to L rīs(us) (ptp. of
rīdēre to laugh) + -ibilis -ible (05)
Synonyms:
1. funny, humorous, comical.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. (06)
My paper copy of webster's said:
risible adj. [F. fr. LL. risibilis, fr. ridere, risum, to laugh]
1. disposed to laugh
2. exciting laughter
3. Used in, or expressing, laughter; of or pertaining to laughter
Syn. see LAUGHABLE (07)
following the synonym link:
Laughable: adj. Fitted to excite laughter.
Syn:
Laughable, ludicrous, ridiculous, comic, farcical, risible, droll,
funny: mean provoking or evoking laughter or mirth
Laughable, the general term, implies no more than this.
...
risible applies to that which evokes amusement of any sort or degree. (08)
So, actually, my paper dictionary doesn't really say that a risible
person is a person who is capable of laugher, ("having the power of
laughing") but rather seems to say a risible person is one who evokes
laughter in another. Nonetheless, I can see why you would want the
meaning you are advocating to be associated with risible, as otherwise
risible is just an unusual form of "funny". (09)
Any thoughts on my question? How do we represent "power of laughing"
in an ontology versus the "evoking of laughing" ?
I think this is a related question to that about "strong" where a
two-year-old thinking that "Daddy is a strong man" because Daddy can
pick up a heavy phone book that the two year old can't budge, and
saying someone is a "strong man" who can pick up things that over 99%
of the population is incapable of picking up. (010)
I'm going to try to see what I can find in OpenCyc and in SUMO. (011)
JK (012)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jawit Kien
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Last Call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive
> datatype
>
>
> I can see the confusion then.
> I typed define:risible into Google and got:
>
>
> Definitions of risible on the Web:
>
> a.. amusing: arousing or provoking laughter; "an amusing film with a
> steady stream of pranks and pratfalls"; "an amusing fellow"; "a comic hat";
> "a ...
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
> b.. Laughter is an audible expression, or appearance of merriment or
> happiness, or an inward feeling of joy and pleasure (laughing on the
> inside). ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risible
> c.. Of or pertaining to laughter; Provoking laughter; ludicrous; Easily
> laughing; prone to laughter
> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/risible
> d.. risibility - a disposition to laugh
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
> e.. risibility - The property of being risible
> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/risibility
>
> I guess "having the power to laugh" and "a disposition to laugh" or "prone
> to laughter"
> is different from "arousing or provoking laughter"
>
> Does anyone know, or is there a standard way to express that difference
> (such in Cyc or SUMO) ? I am also assuming we want to express the difference
> in a computer-understandable ontology which is able to be used by a
> reasoner.
>
> I could see that if you had an English phrase such as above: "an amusing
> film" or "an amusing fellow" or "a comic hat" that you legitimately would
> want to mark the distinction in a knowledge base. If I was searching for
> a funny comedy show, I wouldn't want a show that had people on stage that
> like to laugh at the audience, but vice-versa.
>
> JK
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> JS wrote:
> "I started to follow you until you said property- risible, which to my
> knowledge, means humorous or laughable. Since when someone or something is
> humorous, this means it must be capable of making someone laugh, are you
> saying a "property" is something that is evokable in a third party? Whether
> someone is risible depends on the person who recognizes that the thing is
> funny, shouldn't the person who thinks it is humorous is part of the
> connection? This reminds me of John Sowa's reference to C.S. Pierce's
> quality of "thirdness". If we don't have know who the third party is, can
> you say that something is risible? Should an ontology have a standard but
> anonymous "Person who is easily amused" to provide meaning in this
> situation?"
>
> The basic meaning of 'risible' is "having the power of laughing"
> (Webster). So, "if Jawit be a man, he is risible, and if he be risible, he
> is a man."
> Who wishes to learn a bit more on Genus (Class) and Species, Difference,
> Property, and Accident, dig it here,
> http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_isagogue_02_translation.htm.
> A relevant passage:
> Chap. IV. --Of Property.
>
> Property they divide in four ways: for it is that which happens to some
> one species alone, though not to every (individual of that species), as to a
> man to heal, or to geometrize: that also which happens to a whole species,
> though not to that alone, as to man to be a biped: that again, which happens
> to a species alone, and to every (individual of it), and at a certain time,
> as to every man to |623 become grey in old age: in the fourth place, it is
> that in which it concurs (to happen) to one species alone, and to every
> (individual of it), and always, as risibility to a man; for though he does
> not always laugh, yet he is said to be risible, not from his always
> laughing, but from being naturally adapted to laugh, and this is always
> inherent in him, in the same way as neighing in a horse. They say also that
> these are validly properties, because they reciprocate, since if any thing
> be a horse it is capable of neighing, and if any thing be capable of
> neighing it is a horse.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jawit Kien
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Last Call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive
> datatype
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> MB:
>
> "The way I try to explain it to business domain folks is that if
> something
> walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck then it
> is a
> member of the set of all things that are a duck. Assuming of course
> that
> there is a class of things in the ontology with the properties
> "walks like a
> duck" etc."
>
>
> Then anybody able to imitate could be a duck.
>
> Mike,
> I mostly support your comments, especially touching the business
> issues.
> But even allowing that the human minds are usually tempting to
> simplify
> things, the above is still misleading.
>
> For everybody looking for the ontological and semantic fundamentals,
> I much
> recommend reading or rereading carefully the Topics, a blue-chip,
> priceless
> source of learning on ontological and logical reasoning.
> According it, there are five types of the logical universals
> (predicates or
> predicables and attribution or predication), making any generic
> propositions, like "A is B":
> definition (or species or subclass), signifying a thing's essence;
> genus or class;
> differentia;
> property;
> accident, temporary or relative property (like as the OWL property).
> In every true proposition of the above universal type, the predicate
> might
> have the following attributes:
> 1. it indicates the essence of a thing and convertible (a
> definition);
> 2. it is convertible without stating the essence ( a property);
> 3. it is not convertible but state the essence (a class or
> differentia);
> 4. it is neither convertible nor stating the essence.
> An example, how to find out a property of being a man, what is
> convertible
> without stating the essence: "if A be a man, he is capable of
> learning
> grammar, and if he be capable of learning grammar, he is a man."
> There are the Porphyry's examples of predicable relationships:
> the subject (man):
> class (genus) - animal;
> differentia - rational;
> property - risible;
> accident - white or black or yellow or red.
> Chose any other subject, and try the same universal method for your
> duck as
> well.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
>
> I started to follow you until you said property- risible, which to my
> knowledge, means humorous or laughable. Since when someone or something is
> humorous, this means it must be capable of making someone laugh, are you
> saying a "property" is something that is evokable in a third party? Whether
> someone is risible depends on the person who recognizes that the thing is
> funny, shouldn't the person who thinks it is humorous is part of the
> connection? This reminds me of John Sowa's reference to C.S. Pierce's
> quality of "thirdness". If we don't have know who the third party is, can
> you say that something is risible? Should an ontology have a standard but
> anonymous "Person who is easily amused" to provide meaning in this
> situation?
>
> JK
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Bennett" <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Last Call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive
> datatype
>
>
>
> > Thanks John, that makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > The way I try to explain it to business domain folks is that if
> > something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a
> duck
> > then it is a member of the set of all things that are a duck.
> Assuming
> > of course that there is a class of things in the ontology with the
> > properties "walks like a duck" etc.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > John F. Sowa wrote:
> >> Jonathan, Mike, Pavithra, and Ed,
> >>
> >> As I said before, my primary concern was to clarify some
> confusion
> >> about the use of the word 'class'. It is sometimes used as a
> >> synonym for 'set', sometimes for 'type', and sometimes in a way
> >> that is not clearly one or the other.
> >>
> >> But I admit that the word 'class' has long been used in various
> ways
> >> in various systems and that trying to get people to stop using
> their
> >> favorite terminology is not easy. Therefore, I suggest that the
> >> following convention be used to define the notion of class in
> >> whatever system happens to use the word 'class':
> >>
> >> 1. If in system X, the identity conditions for a class are
> >> determined by extension, then a definition of class in X
> >> should begin with a phrase similar to the following:
> >>
> >> "Every class in system X is a set such that...."
> >>
> >> 2. If in system X, the identity conditions for a class are
> >> determined by intension, then a definition of class in X
> >> should begin with a phrase similar to the following:
> >>
> >> "Every class in system X is a type such that...."
> >>
> >> This convention would allow people to continue to use the word
> >> 'class' whenever they feel the urge to do so, but it would
> clearly
> >> specify whether a class is considered as a set or as a type.
> >>
> >> Some detailed comments on previous comments:
> >>
> >> JR> Regarding OWL's choice of 'type' vs. 'class', what one needs
> to
> >> > know is that RDF already had a notion of "type" when OWL
> started
> >> > making overtures, so when OWL DL came to be embedded in RDF, a
> >> > different term was needed, because there were RDF "types" that
> >> > were not OWL "classes"...
> >>
> >> That indicates that both RDF types and OWL classes are defined by
> >> intension (some rule or description rather than a set of
> instances).
> >> That would imply that every RDF type is a type, and every OWL
> class
> >> is a type.
> >>
> >> Given the convention above, you could say something along the
> >> following lines:
> >>
> >> Every OWL class is a type of entity specified by a document
> >> identified by a particular URI.
> >>
> >> MB> I seem to recall that in OWL1, a Class could be understood
> both
> >> > as extensional (a set of individuals) and intensional (a class
> has
> >> > a collection of properties which would define the members of
> the
> >> > set, i.e. all individuals which have those properties are seen
> as
> >> > members of that set - so still effectively a set of
> individuals,
> >> > but arrived at differently).
> >>
> >> In linguistics, there is a general principle that the intension
> >> of a word (informally, its "meaning") determines its extension.
> >>
> >> For example, the intensional definition of 'integer' or 'cow'
> >> determines the set of all integers or the set of all cows.
> >> If an OWL class is defined as a type, then the set of all
> entities
> >> of that type would be the set of instances of that class.
> >>
> >> PK> ... if you remove that word, it would create a gap from
> modeling
> >> > to implementation in software world!
> >>
> >> My modified recommendation above provides an option for
> continuing
> >> to use the word 'class' whenever people prefer to use that term.
> >> But it provides a way of stating explicitly whether a class is
> >> considered as a set or as a type.
> >>
> >> EB> The percentage of computer science graduate students who are
> >> > incapable of searching the literature that is not available
> online
> >> > in PDF form must now be well over 75%, judging from the papers
> >> > I have read.
> >>
> >> Not only students, but professors as well. The citation
> statistics
> >> now indicate that for papers published in the same year, the
> >> average number of citations for papers available online is 10
> times
> >> the number for papers available only on paper.
> >>
> >> EB> ... the concept of abstract types in programming languages
> goes
> >> > back to 1967 and Simula, and I have not been able to identify
> any
> >> > earlier published programming language that has a formal
> concept
> >> > of abstract type (including a search of Jean Sammet's survey,
> >> > published in 1968-9).
> >>
> >> Jean Sammet was not inclined toward formal definitions. Steve
> Zilles
> >> has a good bibliography of the work in the 1960s and early '70s:
> >>
> >> http://csg.csail.mit.edu/CSGArchives/memos/Memo-75-1.pdf
> >>
> >> Before he went back to MIT, Steve and I had been designing an
> >> interesting system, but it was declared to be "too difficult" for
> >> the IBM Endicott engineers to understand. That was probably
> true.
> >> I started scanning in our specification manual from March 1971:
> >>
> >> http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/afs/sl2.htm
> >>
> >> EB> And therefore, unlike John, I can't fault software
> engineering
> >> > for having chosen "class" as the term for "abstract type",
> >> > regardless of the usage in other disciplines.
> >>
> >> As I said above, I modified my recommendation to let people
> continue
> >> to use their favorite terminology, but still clarify whether they
> >> mean the word 'class' as a set or as a type.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Bennett
> > Director
> > Hypercube Ltd.
> > 89 Worship Street
> > London EC2A 2BF
> > Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
> > Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
> > www.hypercube.co.uk
> > Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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/
>
> 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/
> 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
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|