Javit asked: (01)
[JK] > As an example, I'd like to see what this last paragraph of Pat's
would look like if expressed using solely the words in this list of word
senses created by Cheng-Ming Guo. (02)
>> The main purpose of the FO project I have suggested is to create such
>> a community of users with varied interests who can evolve an FO that
>> suits all of their purposes and serves to support accurate
>> interoperability; and to sustain them for several years so as to
>> properly test that FO. This will provide us with a publicly
>> accessible FO that has actual open-source applications that illustrate
its use,
>> something we don't have now.
>
> Pat, can you do that ? (03)
OK, here is how I would do that, but I would use the Longman Defining
Vocabulary (LDV), since I don't actually have Guo's list. Also, I think the
most practical process is not to replace words with LDV terms, but to use
the terms one finds most appropriate, and then where necessary define those
with the Longman terms. The *practical* defining vocabulary can expand
indefinitely, provided that all of the terms in that vocabulary are
themselves defined (recursively) by grounding in the LDV. (04)
First, I would replace a few words with synonyms already in the defining
vocabulary: (05)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main purpose of the FO project I have suggested is to create such a
community of users with varied interests who can evolve an FO that suits all
of their purposes and serves to enable accurate semantic interoperability;
and to support them for several years so as to properly test that FO. This
will provide us with a publicly accessible FO that has actual open-source
applications that illustrate its use, something we don't have now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (06)
In this paragraph there are 10 terms not in the base CV
******************************************
FO
project
community
evolve
enable
accurate
semantic interoperability
open-source
applications
illustrate
***** End of Unrecognized Words *********** (07)
So those terms have to be defined using the LDV, and where those definitions
use terms not already in the LDV, those defining terms have to be themselves
defined using the LDV, and so on till we ground out all definitions using
the LDV. For each term in the above paragraph not in the LDV (indicated by
a numbered sense in square brackets), I include below its definition plus,
under each such term, the definitions of all terms required to ground *that*
definition in the LDV. These definitions and their grounding are now
included along with other definitions of terms not in the Longman, that are
included in a 'supplemented defining vocabulary' that would eventually be
the practical defining vocabulary, including, for convenience, no only the
LDV terms but others defined using the LDV terms. The list of ca. 600
supplementary terms and their definitions are in the Excel file: (08)
(1) FO
FO: foundation ontology (acronym)
foundation ontology : an ontology[1] that contains logical
representations[1] of most of the most basic concepts;
ontology: a set of data[1] structures that are logical representations[1]
of things in some field of interest
data: information gathered by investigation[1] or from published[1]
documents
publish: to create multiple copies[1] of a book, magazine, or other
textual[1] or graphic[1] material to be written or printed, and sold or
distributed[1] freely to the public
copy[1]: one of two or more essentially[1] identical examples of some type
of object, especially of written material or art objects
textual: consisting mostly of text
graphic: pertaining to or including images
distribute: to share [some things] among a group of people, especially in a
planned way; to give a portion of [some divisible thing or some group ]
investigation: a searching inquiry for the purpose of discovering facts,
which may consist of direct observation of objects or events, or of careful
examination of documents or information from any source
logical representation: an arrangement of symbols[1] that represent
something using the rules of logic[1]
logic: the science that studies the principles of correct reasoning, and
develops formal methods of reasoning, in which statements are combined by
rules to create new statements. (09)
(2) project
project: a carefully planned piece of work to get information about
something, to build something, to improve something etc: (010)
(3) community
community: a group of people who have something in common, such as
interests, religion, or race (011)
(4) evolve
evolve: to develop and improve gradually over a long period of time (012)
(5) enable
enable: to make (some event or process) possible (013)
(6) accurate
accurate: performed without making a mistake (014)
(7) semantic interoperability
semantic interoperability: the ability of two computer systems to exchange
information and interpret it and use it correctly (015)
(8) open-source
open-source: having the source code[1] and necessary data[1] freely
available[1]
source code: the text representing a computer program[1]
computer program: a set of instructions given to a computer to make it
perform an operation:
available: able to be obtained (016)
(9) application
application: a computer program[1] that is designed to perform some useful
action (017)
(10) illustrate
illustrate: to make the meaning of something clearer by giving examples (018)
The point is that, if we have an FO with elements representing all the
necessary senses of the words in the LDV, and have created ontological
specifications for those senses in the FO, then logical representations of
any of the composite terms defined by the LDV terms should be properly
interpretable by a computer system that can properly use the FO, and knows
how to reason with FOL. (019)
At this point we have not developed evidence that all the logical
representations we would ever want to create can be created as FOL
combinations of the elements of the FO (representing all Longman senses used
in definitions). That is the hypothesis to be tested. But the power of
such a process is, in my view, so great that it is well worth spending
serious effort to test. If we can also develop a natural language
interface to the FO that can take a definition using the supplemented
defining vocabulary and create its logical specification, that would make
the FO not only technically powerful, but easy to use. (020)
As you can see from the examples above, representing some of the ideas
people use commonly in communication can be quite complicated. I think it
will take the power of a scientific community working within a common
paradigm to develop the logical representations of even the most common
ideas, known to 6-year olds.. I would like to encourage formation of such a
community. Getting funding for an FO project is one way to start. If this
method doesn't sound familiar, one shouldn't be surprised. After 50 years
we know that human-level knowledge processing is a very difficult task.
Indeed, it is a unique task and we should not expect that tough
long-unsolved problems will be resolved by the traditional approach of
single investigators working independently. (021)
Pat (022)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
|