On Wed, September 8, 2010 19:37, Rich Cooper said:
> Doug,
>
> But isn't WordNet the ontology being used, if synsets are the columns? (01)
WordNet is not an ontology. (02)
I was using David's terminology, where he started describing "something
like unique synsets" to refer to meanings which can be expressed by
multiple words and phrases and then went on to use the word. (03)
> WN may not be a very complex ontology, (04)
Again, it isn't one. (05)
> but WN itself could be one NLP disambiguation source, (06)
True. (07)
> and where synsets CAN have unique meanings, it is
> one to one with interpretants. (08)
My understanding of interpretants is that each interpreter has its own. (09)
> Where a synset itself is ambiguously
> interpreted, you would need special handling events or other method for
> further disambiguating. And still further, you would need to have
> identified an interpretER to get that far into the disambiguation. (010)
I don't see that you need to identify a human interpreter yet. (011)
-- doug foxvog (012)
> Suggestions?
> -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 doug foxvog
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:22 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture
> -Interoperability?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Below the discussion leaves ontologies (if it was really there) and moves
> to a discussion of enterprise architecture databases.
>
>> 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.
>
> Are you saying that each column has a different set of rows?
>
> 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.
>
>> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> == doug f
>
>> -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
> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 781-455-0949 end_of_the_sk
> ype_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
>>
>>
>
>
> =============================================================
> 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
>
>
> (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)
|