[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:05:41 -0500
Message-id: <067901cab004$33039130$990ab390$@com>

Javit Klein wrote:


>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>  Other possible sources of essential primitives could be the 3000 most frequent Chinese characters (covering 98.9% of modern text) and the 2000 most common signs of AMESLAN.  But these symbols have not been tested as a "defining vocabulary".

[JK] > According to:


> just because you can recognise the characters, doesn't mean you know what they mean.
Apparently Chinese characters, much like other words in a natural language, depend
on the way they are used to disambiguate their meaning.
> Perhaps we should be discussing that issue:
> ie: what methods exist to disambiguate the meaning of a word or phrase, so that it can be precisely (enough for a purpose) axiomatised?

  Yes, the individual characters in Chinese do have multiple possible meanings, just as English words do, but many have a core meaning, just as English words do.  And the words composed of more than one character occasionally  have little perceptible relation to the meanings of the individual characters, but that is atypical.   Words in Chinese need to be mapped to the precise meanings of an ontology, just as the words in any other language.  The mappings will depend on the needs of the community using the ontology, but the FO principle is that many communities can use the same FO, though they may map the same word to different ontology elements.

   What the Longman, Chinese characters, and AMESLAN have in common is the exemplification of the principle that, when there is a premium on finding as small a set as possible of symbols for communication, a few thousand seem to suffice as a base for combinatorial construction of many more words.  Because of ambiguity and shift of meaning with context, there may be somewhat more than 3000 precisely defined ontology elements needed to achieve the same coverage in a computer ontology.  But the number needed for computers can only be determined by a careful study, which is a part of the purpose of the FO project.




Patrick Cassidy



cell: 908-565-4053



From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jawit Kien
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:17 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping



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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>