I understand your concern: too many online dictionaries with contradicting
definitions. After all, dictionary definitions are susceptable to subjective
interpretations.
Nevertheless, there are legacy word resources: Merriam-Webster dictionaries,
unbridged, and the OED, the source of markup languages; see the OED online
(20 volumes, 60 m words), http://www.oed.com/.
I recommend to keep as a table book "the New International Webster's
Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language", very useful resource of
meanings, often given with all possible associations and connotations. There
is an online service: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ (01)
Caveat: "Since the late 19th century, dictionaries bearing the name
Webster's have been published by companies other than Merriam–Webster. Some
of these were unauthorized reprints of Noah Webster's work; some were
revisions of his work", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Dictionary (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jawit Kien" <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Last Call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive
datatype (03)
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=risible&search=search
>
> And this definition:
>
> 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
>
> Synonyms:
> 1. funny, humorous, comical.
> Dictionary.com Unabridged
> Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> I'm going to try to see what I can find in OpenCyc and in SUMO.
>
> JK
>
>> ----- 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
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|