On Wed, September 8, 2010 17:57, Rich Cooper said:
> David,
>
> I think he is referring to something like unique synsets, which have a
> single meaning, but which can have multiple word instantiations, a la
> WordNet. (01)
Except that WordNet synsets do not have unique meanings. The multiple
words in a synset have similar meanings. I am referring to terms in an
ontology, each of which has a unique meaning, and which may be expressed
in a natural language in multiple ways. (02)
> That arrow runs from the single meaning (synset) toward the
> {words}, not the other way around. Reverse that arrow and you have the
> single interpretation that can be actually emulated; at the other end, you
> have words that point to several synsets which may alternatively interpret
> them, so the direction of the arrow is the critical concept I think. (03)
It seems to me, both that an individual word has multiple meanings and
that individual meanings can be expressed by multiple words or phrases.
The arrow direction would depend upon the relationship indicated between
the entities referenced by the head and tail of the arrow. (04)
Below the discussion leaves ontologies (if it was really there) and moves
to a discussion of enterprise architecture databases. (05)
> So the enterprise architecture database should have columns that are
> unique
> synsets (in effect) of enterprise meaning. Each synset could have one row
> for every word that instantiates it, perhaps one row for every word that
> can be interpreted with that synset as interpretant. (06)
Are you saying that each column has a different set of rows? (07)
Or are you suggesting a matrix of synsets with a row for each word in
the synset? Since there would be a lot more synsets than words in a
synset, perchance it would be better to have the rows being synsets and
the columns being words in the synset. (08)
> Which brings up the problem of representing multiple interpreters. Would
> each synset have one set of interpretant rows for each interpreter? It
> seems like the only conclusion unless you want everyone in the enterprise
> to use words the same way (unlikely to be successful). (09)
It could be useful to define contexts in which given words have different
meanings. Then the interpreter would choose their context (payroll,
sales, etc.) for their current task. Separate rows for each interpreter
would not be called for. (010)
Even if restricted to database tables, if one used a column after a word
to encode the set of contexts in which it was used one wouldn't need to
repeat rows (or tables) for each context. (011)
== doug f (012)
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Eddy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:24 PM
> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture
> -Interoperability?
>
> Doug -
>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:12 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
>
>> a Semantic Web needs ontologies of terms with fixed meanings
>
> Is this saying that a term (word, phrase, acronym, abbreviation,
> whatever) can only have a single meaning?
>
> What did I miss here?
>
>
> As I have observed before & will undoubtedly observe again...
>
> George Miller's "Ambiguous Words" http://www.kurzweilai.net/
> ambiguous-words offers an average of 10 meanings per (real) word.
>
> My dictionary of largely acronyms (but where's the line between
> acronym & real word... I don't have a clue) finds some 34 meanings
> per term/word. Whittling that down to 1 meaning per term is going to
> be tough.
>
> ___________________
> David Eddy
> deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 781-455-0949
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 781-455-0949 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (014)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|