On Wed, September 8, 2010 19:16, Pavithra said:
> I have a simpler solutions with same term and multiple meanings..
> In this particular case, I would separate the term that has ambiguous
> meaning and use an additional
clause to affirm the meaning. For
> example for American English if the word = Gas and Substance_state =
> liquid then I would use it the same way as gasoline and patrol. But if
> the word = gas and substance_state = gas .. I would treat it as the term
> gas as in Oxygen.
On text generation, this can be useful. But on text interpretation,
one might not know the substance state.
> But I just think people should disqualify using the word Gas for Patrol so
> we do not go on building the vocabulary like gas-tank, etc etc around
> such ambiguous terms.
For generating controlled vocabularies, this is a good idea. For
interpreting free text -- or terms already existing in enterprise
programs, it may not be possible.
-- doug f
> --- On Wed, 9/8/10, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> From: doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture -
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 5:12 PM
> On Wed, September 8, 2010 13:04, Pavithra said:
>> Thanks for the detail explanation of how such concepts are resolved in
>> Cyc. I agree when Ontology is developed using controled and well
>> terms, it should help.
>> But Web
is full of user developed/ filled content.
> Which is why a Semantic Web needs ontologies of terms with fixed meanings.
>> My issue was more like term "Gas" as in gasoline and petrol vs Gas as
>> Oxygen and Nitrogen in the same country, along with different
>> One is a derived usage where as other is the actual term.
> These seem to me to be NLP issues, not ontological issues. Be that as it
> may, I'd say that both "Gas"es are actual terms. Similarly, "oxygen" and
> "nitrogen" are words for both elements and binary compounds which are
> gasses at standard temperature and pressure.
>> Your example AmericanEnglishNT would have these two words with total
>> different meaning. Because here we do use the word Gas as in Oxygen and
If you do not know the meaning of the word, how would you
>> solve it?
> I assume you mean that i don't know which of a set of meanings to select
> when doing NLP. I would solve the problem as follows:
> * Create several contexts for different sets of selected meanings of
> * If the dialect (British, American, Australian, ...) is known, restrict
> possible meanings to those in that dialect's context.
> * Generate assertions matching the NL statements using predicates with
> type-restricted arguments.
> * Reject interpretations that would make the generated assertion invalid.
> Oxygen is a gas. The party was a gas. I filled my Prius with gas.
> The first denotation for Gas-TheWord would be used for sentence 1.
> The fifth denotation for Gas-TheWord would be used for sentence
> The second denotation for Gas-TheWord(in Am.EnglishMt) would be for 3.
>> Along with URI reference, there is URN (Unified Reference Name) which
>> should give more of a granular reference. However is that effective?
>> Does it solve the above example of multiple meanings?
> So long as the different otological terms have different URIs, there are
> no multiple meanings of the ontological terms. It is an NLP issue to map
> the English terms (with multiple meanings) to the correct ontological
>> When I worked for Citigroup, we had to defined country context - for
>> money, language, conversion factors etc for systems.. I am not saying
>> is new, but it is interesting in terms of Semantic Web and Semantic
>> Interoperability and all the new
> The country context was useful because the data were using did not
> specify their units used. The contexts gave you that information.
> -- doug
>> --- On Tue, 9/7/10, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx
>> From: doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture -
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 5:10 PM
>> One problem that often occurs in
discussing computer ontologies is the
>> conflation of words, terms in an ontology, and the things represented
>> by those words and terms. If one stops to think, it is clear that these
>> are different things.
>> Words have conjugations, declinations, derivations, plurals,
>> pronunciations, spellings, and meanings. Terms in an ontology do not
>> have linguistic properties. The things represented by the words and
>> ontological terms may have have physical properties, which the other
>> two types of object don't have.
>> To discuss meanings of words and terms in ontologies, it is necessary
>> to carefully distinguish these three classes of things.
>> On Mon, September 6, 2010 10:29, Pavithra said:
>>> Semantic interoperability is new and mature ontology development
>>> would help create that. But there are always words that are used with
>>> different semantics based on context, culture, environment.
>> Semantic interoperability should not be based on words, but on defined
>> terms with fixed definitions. In computer languages it isn't an issue
>> that reserved words (object, method, ...) have different meanings in
>> other contexts. Terms in ontologies should be similarly be treated
>> as reserved words and thus be unambiguous.
>> The combination of a specified ontology with a specified term in the
>> ontology has a unique meaning. A different ontology which has a term
>> with the same name should cause no problems so long as the ontology
>> which is used when the term is referenced is clear.
>> URIs provide such
unambiguity by having a leading part which indicates
>> the ontology & a final part which indicates the name of a term within
>> that ontology. Languages which use name spaces have a method of
>> indicating the name space (representing the ontology) connected to the
>> name within that name space. These can be translated into URIs by
>> appending the term name to the URI representing the name space.
>>> In America
>>> a gas tank holds gas which is liquid.. ( yeah gas derived from the
>>> gasoline for the word petrol. )
>> It is the *word* "gasoline" which is used in the US for the substance
>> denoted (in the UK & Ireland) by the *word* "petrol". Of course the
>> word "petrol" is derived from the word "petroleum" -- but in a different
>> fashion that the
physical petrol is derived from physical petroleum. 8)#
>>> But if you use the web in another
>>> country one is looking at gas, which has totally different properties
>>> then liquid. I mean where is it defined that gas = petrol?
>> If you are referring to the meaning of the words, the question could be
>> more clearly phrased: "where is it defined that the meanings of the
>> words spelled "gas" and "petrol" are the same?
>> In Cyc, six statements map the words spelled "gas", "gasoline", and
>> "petrol" to the concept of gasoline, three mapping the text strings
>> to conceptual entities called words, and three providing denotations of
>> the two words which are the same.
>> in the context EnglishMt:
>> (denotation Gasoline-TheWord 1 MassNoun
>> (massNumber Gasoline-TheWord "gasoline").
>> in the context AmericanEnglishMt:
>> (denotation Gas-TheWord 2 MassNoun GasolineFuel).
>> (massNumber Gas-TheWord "gas").
>> in the context BritishEnglishMt:
>> (denotation Petrol-TheWord 1 MassNoun GasolineFuel).
>> (massNumber Petrol-TheWord "petrol").
>> In the context BritishEnglishMt (or contexts which inherit it) Cyc
>> can conclude that the words spelled "petrol" and "gasoline" can each
>> refer to the same thing. This is because BritishEnglishMt inherits
>> EnglishMt. Likewiae, in AmericanEngishMt (which also inherits
>> Cyc can conclude that the words spelled "gas" and "gasoline" can each
>> refer to the same thing.
>> However, to conclude that "gas" and "petrol" refer to the
>> Cyc would have to be in a context which inherits both AmericanEnglishMt
>> and BritishEnglishMt. Such a context should not be used in language
>>> Then there
>>> are same words that are used in different cultures and different
>> Similarly, the mapping of words and meanings should be defined in
>> contexts particular to the appropriate culture and/or language.
>>> There are some proposed solutions - an Ontology repository that tracks
>>> semantics to use it to harmonize meanings could help to resolve such
>>> semantic difference.
>> It appears that you are referring to using ontologies for natural
>> processing and understanding
>>> The same solutions would work for Semantic web too..
>> If full URIs were used on the Semantic Web, it would not be an issue
>> since the different meanings of terms would use different URIs.
>>> However at present the concept of Linked data seems more at URI and
>>> URL level.. kind of at object level rather than words and things.
>> As discussed at the beginning, words and things are at two very
>> levels. And computer ontology terms for describing them is a third
>> distinct level.
>> -- doug f
>>> ( I am
>>> not sure , I am trying say the granularity could be different). which
>>> again structural level.
>> ============================================================doug foxvog
>> doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>> "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.
>> 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
> ============================================================doug foxvog
> doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
> "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.
> 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
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
"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.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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