On Sat, September 18, 2010 6:16, FERENC KOVACS said:
> I believe that core ontology concepts are objects, properties and
> relations.
I suppose you mean classes of objects. Is the distinction between
properties and relations that properties relate objects to datatypes
while relations relate multiple objects or have more than two arguments?
This sounds fine to me, so long as the concept of
object needs not be
physical and can include events and situations.
Personally, i don't see the need for distinguishing properties and
relations in an ontology, although many ontology languages do make
that distinction. This seems a language-dependent distinction to me.
> In fact, the intitial state
Are you referring to the initial state of an ontology in the process
of creation? Or are you referring to the state of a reference ontology
whose terms are used to make statements in a knowledge base with no
additional definitional statements?
> is an object which is a unity of them and it is
> exploded through a number of mental operations. (Examles wanted?)
I'm not sure what you mean by an ontology exploding. Do you mean
deriving all statements which are derivable from the initial statements
in the ontology?
If so, i would suggest that this "explosion" could be
carried out by
formal logical operations -- they wouldn't need to be mental operations.
> With the help
> of these categories I can semantically analyze natural langauges and
> create an ontology that integrates the currently different domains.
> In this approach
> axioms and the concept of events are not of primary interest, because
> verbs are seen as the representations of relations
This is not necessarily the best way to model verbs. In languages which
use verbs like English does, a verb indicates the occurrence of either a
situation or an event, with subject, direct object, indirect object, and
prepositional phrases indicating relations between the event and event
participants.
Features of the events/situations can certainly be modeled by relations
that ignore the events themselves, but this would require multiple
relations to be defined for each verb depending
upon what other phrases
happen to be in the sentence. Using this technique makes it difficult
to add more information about the same event and requires multiple rules
to inter-relate the multiple relations that represent the same verb.
Jill threw the chair.
Jill threw me the chair.
Jill threw the chair through the window.
Jill threw the chair yesterday.
Jill threw the chair to kill the toad.
Jill probably threw the chair at the toad.
IMHO, the verb "threw" represents a different relation in each of these,
but each use can unambiguously represent a throwing event, with multiple
relations to generate depending upon the other parts of the sentence.
> (hence not limited to Boolean operators).
Why wouldn't the relations have Boolean truth values? Is the point to
allow for probability descriptors?
> Therefore the issuse of
disambiguation as for dictionaries is a
> futile exercise, as the defintions used are sometimes incomplete and
Many dictionary definitions are certainly incomplete, but that does not
mean that they do not may true statements constraining the meaning of
the thing they define.
> irrelevant in semantic terms,
I have not seen this.
> this is why you cannot "merge" them (should try to integrate
> them instead) as they are not in compatible forms (content)
If you are referring to multiple definitions from the same source,
they shouldn't be merged because they are describing different
denotations of the word. Each definition should denote a different
concept.
If you are referring to multiple definitions from different sources,
integrating multiple definitions of the same meaning of a word is
certainly appropriate. However, sometimes such integration can be
handled
by merging.
> and they are not modular either.
> You must accept that such a new ontology should be dynamic as
> many of you already suspect.
If the ontology is used to interpret NL text in an open area, the
ontology would be incomplete and should dynamically be expanded.
If the ontology is to be used to express the information in a data
base that has been in constant use for years, dynamaticity is not
so crucial.
>> In math logic domain there is a kind of definition - an abbreviation when
>> they introduce new symbol saying for example:
>> definition
>> t≤s denotes t<s or t=s
> In my "semantic analysis" this is formalization, a mental operation of the
> relation between two objects as indicated.
This formalization/definition is a logical operation between two
expressions (one of which is a disjunction, I suppose the
expressions
could be called objects.
> The commonsense transcript is that an
> object (to be specified, otherwise it does not make sense) is smaller than
> another object after comparison and a few other operations also required
> to arrive at that result in formalization.
You are stepping beyond the definition as given, to interpret what the
definition means. This is intentionally moving beyond logic.
> In doing this I used the mental
> operation called interpretation, the reverse of formalization.
> For any message (statement) to make sense it is necessary to be complete,
Why can't a message tell merely a portion of a fact, instead of being
complete?
> which means that if it has (as it should have) a verb in it,
> then it should have person,
Here, i assume you mean grammatical person, not requiring the message
to relate to a person.
Person, in this sense, is a linguistic feature
of sentences of many languages, not necessarily relating to a feature
of the meaning being discussed.
> number and tense specified among others to make sense.
Similarly number, tense, gender and other linguistic features are
allowed or required by different languages "to make sense". Such
features may or may not relate to a feature of the meaning being
discussed and might or might not be expressed in the knowledge base
using the ontology.
> Or in other words "Media is the message" is interpreted as
> The message is instruction - in my translation.
I find this interpretation curious and don't understand how it
relates to your above statements.
> Regards, Ferenc
=============================================================
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.
=============================================================
=============================================================
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