[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:56:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <53540.>
I found the below in my outbox.  I apparently did not send it a few weeks
ago.    (01)

It might clarify things, so i'm sending it now.
-- doug    (02)

On 9/30/2010 6:11 AM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
> HI, Doug and John
> This discussion has a moving tartget. Unless you accept mental
operations at work, we never get a steady picture in focus.    (03)

The miscommunication here seems to derive from John and me discussing
ontology components and Ferenc discussing Natural Language Processing
components.    (04)

A general ontology is designed to represent things (and types of things) in
the "real world" as well as mental constructs.   NL terminology is
designed to describe words and linguistic phenomena.    (05)

>From an ontological viewpoint, words and phrases are linguistic objects
which denote one or many concepts (whether individuals or categories).
Words have different properties from the things they represent.  Words can
be conjugated, declined, pluralized, have tenses, grammatical gender, and
spellings -- all of which are properties most of the things the words
(and phrases) represent do not have.  Similarly, the linguistic objects
do not have the properties that the things they represent do have.    (06)

In English, verbs may model relations, but from an ontological view, they
are not relations, merely mental constructs with a language, (probably
unknown) creation date, and set of rules for use and modification.    (07)

> John:
> > If you want a 4-D ontology that is compatible with modern
> > physics, I strongly recommend Whitehead's ontology, which
> > makes process fundamental.  What some philosophers call
> > 'continuants' are merely slow-moving processes that don't
> > change their shape very much from one encounter to another.
> > I also discuss Whitehead, among others, in that article
> > cited below.    (08)

> I have not read his ontology yet, but I asume that he has a better
> picture of realiyt (hence ontology created) than the rest.    (09)

> Although I do not accept the term
> 4D (or 3D for that matter as they are misnomers to me)    (010)

They are not NL terms, so do not make sense in that context.    (011)

> I agree that intdocuing time in an ontology    (012)

Both 3D and 4D models deal with time.   A 3D model views a temporal-spatial
object as totally present at any point in time that it exists.  This object
may (or may not) change location and/or shape and gain or loose parts over
time.    (013)

A 4D model in effect views time as a fourth spatial dimension.   A temporal-
spatial object thus has an (in most cases) contiguous unchanging 4D
volume.  Any "change" in the object (from a 3D perspective) is merely the
difference between two different temporal 3D slices of the unchanging 4D
volume.    (014)

>  is introducing change or movement which is Relation and    (015)

Change and movement *can be represented* by relations in a logical system.
But imho, representing any fact, even a static fact, requires the use of a
relation.    (016)

Sure, one can create an object that represents the fact, e.g.
TheSinkingOfTheTitanic, but to define it so that logical inferences can
 be drawn requires the use of relations.    (017)

> which is therefore Verb.    (018)

Since an English sentence requires a verb and a sentence is needed to
state a fact (or set of facts) in English, while in a logical notation,
the sentence is mapped to a set of relations operating on arguments, a
correlation between verbs and relations seems evident.    (019)

>From an ontological perspective, a verb *can* denote a relation which
describes change.  It can thus represent (from a certain viewpoint) a
category of change.  The verb "to be" can also introduce a static fact.    (020)

A verb when used in a particular sentence in a particular context can
refer to a particular change (the limits of which might be fuzzy).    (021)

> I do not need more primitives than object, property and relation to
> build an ontology for any domain.    (022)

If you are saying that everything can be modeled as an instance of one of
these, i agree.  However, property and relation are subclasses of object.
One must treat properties and relations as objects when defining their
properties.  For example,    (023)

  (subRelationOf parent ancestor)
  (arg1Isa length SpatialObject)
  (arg2Isa length Distance)    (024)

However, the discussion of primitives for an ontology includes more than
what is the minimal root of a class/instance hierarchy.    (025)

>  To illustrate my points consider this:    (026)

> In my view a relation must be embodied by a verb,    (027)

This is a discussion of language representation, not ontology.    (028)

I translate this as
1. All representations of relations in English must be modeled by verbs.    (029)

However, i disagree with this premise, as outlined below.    (030)

>  because    (031)

> a)      a verb is required to represent a predicate    (032)

Don't English adjectives and adverbs always represent predicates?  This is
why they are described as modifiers.    (033)

The phrase, "the fuzzy orange cat on the mat" includes no verbs but
represents three
predicates, one of which is an inter-object relation:
  (color CAT1 OrangeColor)
  (texture CAT1 FuzzyHaired)
  (onTopOf CAT1 FLOOR_MAT1)    (034)

> b)      a verb is one of the most generic word classes (content words)    (035)

So verbs (as well as nouns, adjectives, and adverbs) should be used when
making statements in English (and other languages).    (036)

> where
> c)      the other two word classes (i.e. nouns and adjectives) sem to
> identify objects in spacetime,    (037)

Are you distinguishing predicates from relations here?  An adjective
normally modifies a single noun, which if single can normally be modeled
as a binary predicate.    (038)

But comparative adjectives represent inter-object relations, e.g. "elder"
could be modeled by the relation "olderThan":
  "John and the elder Mary"
is represented by the assertion
  (olderThan MARY1 JOHN1)    (039)

>  whereas
> d) nothing but the verbs can represent relations, especially when it
> comes to change and motion behind which you have non-visible entities.    (040)

I have shown that prepositions and adjectives can serve this purpose.
The use of an appositive can also do so:
  "Juan and his twin, Maria"
maps to:
  (twins JUAN1 MARIA1)    (041)

> e)      Verbs are not possible to grasp the same way as nominals (via
> their boundaries or definitions)    (042)

I'm not sure why verbs can not be grasped via their definitions and
boundaries in "the same way as nominals".    (043)

What else is needed for grasping them (i.e., their meaning?)?
Is it conjugation and tense issues?    (044)

Why is differential grasping an argument for "a relation must be embodied
by a verb "?    (045)

>  and
> f)  Verbs seem to need a subject and an object even when they are used
> in SV (non transitive) syntax.    (046)

Are "subject" and "object" used here as linguistic terms?   Or do you mean
that a description in a logical language of the use of a verb in a sentence
requires two arguments, the first labeled "subject" and the second "object"?    (047)

What would the subject and object be for
  "It's raining"?    (048)

> g) It is the verb that does not make sense (is not complete) without the
> details of person and tense,    (049)

Again, this is a linguistic issue, not an ontological one.  I don't see
that it argues for relations having to be modeled by verbs.    (050)

Do you man that linguistic person and tense are inherent in a spoken or
written verb?  This is a property true to some extent of English, to a
greater extent of many other languages (possibly differentially so in
spoken and written language), but not true at all of Mandarin.    (051)

What are the details of person and tense of the English verb "hit"?    (052)

Does a noun make sense without plurality, declination, and gender?    (053)

> hence it is the only word class to allow us to
> provide information on the generator/identification of any
> communication/message,    (054)

What information does the verb "is" in the above sentence provide
about the communicator?  ... or the verb "provide" in the question
i just asked?    (055)

When conjoined with a personal pronoun for a subject the verb provides a
little information on the generator of the communication.   In Japanese,
the honorific used also provides such information.    (056)

> hence compare two statements and find out who is right or
> wrong (what is tue or false).
> Doug:
> >>"On Fri, September 24, 2010 6:22, FERENC KOVACS said:
>> >>...
>> >> Rich:
>> >>> The crucial idea is to NOT start with classes, sets, or other
>> >>> constructions, which are not truly primitive.    (057)

>> >>  The infant perceives objects, and situations
>> >> (relationships among collections of objects and situations)
>> >> differently as she
>> >> learns more and more about these mysterious realities.    (058)

> > It takes a lot of learning to get to this stage.    (059)

> I agree. But if you draw up the path we have been covering new kids
> can follow that with ease and learning will be quicker.    (060)

Huh?  The context was whether infants perceiving objects was primitive.
I first state that perception of objecthood is learned, and then provide an
argument below.    (061)

I fail to see that anything we are doing will speed up infants learning the
concept of objecthood in the first year of life.    (062)

> Doug:
> > The infant initially visually perceives patterns of light.  Light is
> > distinguished by color, brightness, and location in the visual field.
> > Some regions of the brain detect specific patterns such as parallel
> > lines and concentric disks.
> >  There is no object detection at this point.
> > As the head moves the patterns move in the visual cortex.  Early
> > learning relates the patterns moving in the visual cortex to something
> > external to the head.  Motion of the head (when detected) causing
> > motion of visual patterns suggest a fixed existence of whatever
> > causes the patterns.
> > Similar motions of portions of the visual field occur when the head is
> > not moving.  This suggests that whatever causes the patterns in the
> > limited sections of the visual field have some existence distinct from
> > whatever causes the patterns in other parts of the visual field.  This
> > seems to be the origin for the attribution of visual objecthood.  The
> > use of other senses helps ground such objecthood.
> > Further learning allows objecthood to be assigned to flexible connected
> > motions and continuous objecthood to be attributed to the source of
> > similarly moving patterns with a non-moving (or otherwise moving) region
> > in between (indicative of a separate object between the observer and the
> > moving object).
> > Multiple experiences with the same or similar objects allows for
> > classification of objects by type or individuality based on similarity
> > of properties of the visual experience."    (063)

> It is all very well. So what?    (064)

This was in response to your suggestion that objects are primitive while
types are constructions.  I am trying to show that objects are likewise
constructions of the mind.    (065)

Sameness of an object from one viewing to another is also a construction
since it takes a lot of learning for a baby to understand this.    (066)

>> FK Maybe.
>> Notice that I do not use concepts like partition, kind, type, etc.
>> as they are
>> not primitives to me. The primitives are still object, property and
>> relation (associated with the dichotome facets above) and they are
>> generated/produced by mental operations    (067)

> > Aren't objecthood and relations generated by mental operations?  Some
> > visual properties would be primitive, but most properties are assigned
> > to objects, and thus have to be generated by mental operations as well,
> > since the objects are.
> FK: I need to insert two tables here, my appologies for RTF
> LORP-words conversion table * Lorp = Lean Object Relation Property model
> Operations/
> ORP Recognition/
> Identification Isolation/
> Comparison Abstraction/
> Attribution[1] Materialisation/
> Substantiation/
> Name giving Production/
> Sharing
> Object 1 Girl     “girl”
> Property 1   smile smile “smile”
> Object 2  Smile     Smile
> Object 3/
> Product 1         Girlsmile, smilegirl
> VS (syntax)         Girl smiled
> labels         Smiling girl Girl of smile Smiler, girl
> New information Smile
> Operations Specification Generalization Formalization Interpreation
> Sharing
> Object 1 The (girl) A girl/girls
>   “g” “girl” Generic/specific ladder
> Property 1   generic Variable/keyword   Descriptors
> Object 2  (her) smile No further properties “s” Change (from no smile
> Property>object conversion
> Object 3         Girlsmile, smilegirl
> VS (syntax)     SP (logic)   The Girl smiled
> labels     g+s as tags or key/searchwords
> (Boolean operators)   Smiling girl
> Girl of smile Smiler, girl
> New information Smile
> ________________________________
> [1]A property/attribute and an object is in possessive case (relation) by
> definition. Not always symmetrical though.
>> the proof for which is already available
>> in dictionaries, lexicons, etc.
>> But the problem is that the items in those collections (and in other
>> repertories) are sorted morphologically (lexically, or alphabetically) on
>> forms (names, objects) whereas we want a sort on content (properties)
>> which are not available even as a cross reference!!
> In an ontology, a sort on property cross reference would be available.
> I know. But the problem is that we want a search in terms of properties
> (vontent) instead of form (entry words) in cases when we want to learn
> about the world and/or the words.
>> Why? because the way such objects (concepts included)
>> are generated and thus related is not documented - see the
>> debate on process vs. structure. And behind that debate we have the
>> problem of representing verbs (change, motion)
> > Verbs are lexical creations.  They represent change (or stasis),
> including change in position or orientations which is called motion.
> > I assume you are discussing the problem of representing change (or
> > stasis) instead of representing lexical components.
> Verbs can be created from any noun and they are never capable of
> pinpointing anything but a change, which brings in the issue of speed of
> perception and change, the issue of present , past and future, etc.    (068)

Isn't "to be" a verb which pinpoints stasis, not change?    (069)

I can't understand the point you are trying to make below.  It seems that
you are saying that 1D or 2D diagrams (which may include language) can
not represent change, although (1D) language can.  This does not make
sense to me.    (070)

>> in 2D, in a diagram, which by definition is not fit for the job.    (071)

> > I wonder what the definition of diagram is that you refer to.  It seems
> > to me that anything (including text) can be added to a diagram to
> > provide needed information.  Are you stating that change can not be
> > described in language?  Written language is 1D; so should be no more
> > fit for the job than a 2D representation.
> Just look at the multitudes of diagrams available. (specific diagram
> types) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram
> Neither 1D nor 2D are fir for representing movement.    (072)

Language is 1D, so it must not be fit for this purpose, either.    (073)

> representing
> something in 2D or 1D is drawing something in a linear fashion.  While in
> 1D you chnage directions at the end of the line, it is different with
> pictures.Chunking in writing is done by spaces and symbols (. ! ?, etc.)    (074)

Diagrams also use symbols.    (075)

-- doug    (076)

> with diagrams it is different, whichever format is where
> The analysis or interpretation of mental operations start.
> ferenc
> -- doug
>> My best regards, ferenc
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (077)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (078)

"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.
=============================================================    (079)

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    (080)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>