Hi Patrick,
Thanks for your well
thought through opinions, though I disagree on practical grounds with your
conclusions. Here is Google's best response to the
"define:ontology" request I gave it:
•In
computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal
representation of the knowledge by a set of concepts within a domain and the
relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the properties
of that domain, and may be used to describe the domain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
Nothing in that
defintion, or in any other that was returned, required a singular meaning, or
unambiguous interpretation of the term ontology. There is no reference
that ontologies "have to have one meaning per tem", though that seems
to be the common refrain in our conversation here.
The people on this list
are more deeply cerebral about ontologies than whoever defined google's
responses, but I disagree that the COMMON meaning of the term ontology requires
UNAMBIGUOUS meanings. I think that is because humans, which are the
engines that process ontologies, are not consistent, complete or careful about
the words we use.
Only the very simplest
"ontologies", such as Dublin Core, have any real chance of exhibiting
a singular meaning for each phrase. I am in the minority here in
believing my postulate, though, and there are some great theoretical
ontologists here who strongly feel that ontology is a 100% logical mathematized
rendering of human concepts. So you might be better off following the
mathematized theories if your goal is to write papers and research reports. When
it comes to real markets, this stuff just won't work, in my humble opinion, any
more than logical inference, which was supposed to change the world back in
1980 with the Japanese Fifth Generation plan to build fully logic based
computers.
Ontology is a great idea
- knowledge is more useful when it is organized. But to think it is
semantically singular is simply misled and unrealistic, IMHO. Ontologies
will ALWAYS be "heterogeneous" as you put it if they are intended to
be used by humans, even in the input/output GUI way.
-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 Patrick Cassidy
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:27 PM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture-Interoperability?
Doug F is right, the
WordNet is not an ontology; it was organized according
to "psycholinguistic
principles" and the synsets, though organized in a
hierarchy by
"hypernym" and "hyponym" links, do not form a fully accurate
inheritance hierarchy
(though they often are correctly ordered), and it
therefore cannot be used
for accurate reasoning. Nevertheless, it has been
used as the standard for
word disambiguation for a number of year now by the
Natural Language
Processing community, who recognize its shortcomings. Some
efforts have been made to
reorganize or ontologized the WordNet, but they
are very preliminary.
As part of
the COSMO project I am conducting, I am trying to find WordNet
synsets that are the same
as or close to the logically defined concepts in
the COSMO hierarchy.
It takes a lot of effort, in part because the WordNet
synsets are often
heterogeneous - they include distinguishably different
conceptual components, as
evidenced by the usage examples given in the
WordNet glosses. So
a "mapping" of any ontology (which has been done for
SUMO and CYC) will not
result in identifying WordNet synsets that can always
be identified with
logically definable concepts that can be used for
reasoning.
The solution
is, I believe, regrettably, to essentially redo the WordNet
and create a version that
has a more accurate inheritance hierarchy at its
base, with the mappings
to words that may (in different contexts) label
those concepts, to form a
WordNet-like lexical resource that can be used for
NLP. Unfortunately,
because most NLP these days is statistical and requires
tagged texts for training
the parsers, this will also require re-tagging
texts to provide training
material. There are a number of issues involved
in such an effort (for
example, some words may need to be represented by
functions or procedural
code, rather than FOL ontology elements). Even
though the examples of
WordNet and existing ontologies will make the work
easier and faster, there
is still considerable effort involved. How long it
will take before enough
interest is developed to ensure adequate funding is
quite uncertain - but I
think this kind of work is essential to begin the
approach to human-level
language understanding. My own efforts with the
COSMO will result only in
a WordNet-like resource that covers the basic
language - 2000 or so
concepts, fewer than twice that many words.
But such a
resource, if adopted by ontology users who want to
interoperate, can serve
not only as a resource for some basic NLP but also
as the "Primitive
Inventory Foundation Ontology" (PIFO) that will allow
translation among local
ontology dialects that are mapped to the PIFO.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of doug foxvog
> Sent: Thursday,
September 09, 2010 10:20 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Semantic Enterprise Architecture -
> Interoperability?
>
> On Wed, September 8,
2010 19:37, Rich Cooper said:
> > Doug,
> >
> > But isn't
WordNet the ontology being used, if synsets are the columns?
>
> WordNet is not an
ontology.
>
> 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.
>
> > WN may not be a
very complex ontology,
>
> Again, it isn't one.
>
> > but WN itself
could be one NLP disambiguation source,
>
> True.
>
> > and where
synsets CAN have unique meanings, it is
> > one to one with
interpretants.
>
> My understanding of
interpretants is that each interpreter has its own.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't see that you
need to identify a human interpreter yet.
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
=============================================================
> 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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