On Wed, September 7, 2011 16:02, Rich Cooper said:
> ...
>
> Consider words like get, set, put which have
> multiple conceptual counterparts, I think you
> mentioned there are more than 600 WordNet entries
> for these polysemous three. A single TYPE object
> designed to implement PUT, in all its polysemous
> glory, (01)
What would be the purpose of this? It would be the
union of many disjoint, overlapping, and subsuming
meanings. Individual meanings would have to be
determined in order to make sense of an English
phrase of sentence with the word. (02)
For NL, what would be far more useful is a set of
denotations for Put-TheEnglishWord plus denotations
for phrases which include the word "put" whose meanings
can not be derived from the meanings of their components. (03)
> could be constructed from MULTIPLE other
> object TYPEs that represent the various semantic
> interpretations normally given to that word, so
> that a SINGLE TYPE can interpret all 600+ meanings
> by determining the context in which said PUT is
> used, and implement its proper semantic
> interpretation by choosing which edge in the
> lattice to traverse to call the specialized
> subTYPE with the correct semousness. (04)
This seems far more complex than having multiple
denotations. (05)
> Can you explain how such a SINGLE TYPE can be
> constructed without inconsistencies? (06)
It could be constructed as a union of types, but it
would not, imho, be useful. (07)
> -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 John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:02 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal and
> categories in BFO & DOLCE
>
>
>
> On 9/7/2011 12:31 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>
>> Generalization removes a property or method from
> the old type
>
>> to create a new type, while specialization adds
> a property or
>
>> method to the old type to create the new type,
> by definition.
>
>
>
> Those two operations can be expressed in logic.
> For example,
>
> the property P could be defined as a conjunction
> of other properties
>
> (or attributes or features or facets or whatever
> you want to call them):
>
>
>
> P = p1 & p2 & ... & pN
>
>
>
> If you remove a property from P, you get a more
> general property Q
>
> that is implied by P: If P, then Q.
>
>
>
> If you add another property to P, you get a more
> specialized
>
> property R that implies P: If R, the P.
>
>
>
> Basic principle: More general properties are true
> of a larger
>
> number of cases, and more specialized properties
> are true of
>
> a smaller number of cases.
>
>
>
> The more special case implies the more general
> case. But you
>
> can use logics with more operators than just
> conjunction.
>
>
>
>> ... many programming languages (Delphi) also
> restrict type
>
>> constructors to only have singular inheritance
> which avoids
>
>> the very possibility of introducing consistency
> errors.
>
>
>
> That is a brute-force method. It's better to use
> development
>
> tools that are guaranteed to ensure all and only
> the valid
>
> generalizations. There are many such tools.
>
>
>
>> But what about languages with multiple
> inheritance (C++ etc)
>
>> where the new type is a combination of old type
> properties
>
>> and methods, given that the specific new type
> definition
>
>> ALSO leaves out some of the properties and
> methods of the
>
>> old types? That would make a lattice rather
> than a hierarchy.
>
>> The problem is that the constructors might
> introduce
>
>> inconsistencies...
>
>
>
> What you need are better development tools that
> don't introduce
>
> inconsistencies *and* can detect and eliminate any
> inconsistencies
>
> that may be lurking.
>
>
>
> If you recall the earlier discussions with Rick
> Murphy, he was
>
> recommending methods based on intuitionistic logic
> that generate
>
> combinations that are computationally efficient to
> check.
>
>
>
> Description logics use a different choice of
> operators that
>
> also generate combinations that can be checked
> automatically.
>
>
>
> Another computational method, which uses a logic
> that is a subset
>
> of both DLs and intuitionistic logic, is Formal
> Concept Analysis
>
> (FCA). The only operator that FCA methods use for
> defining
>
> properties is conjunction. That creates a very a
> simple logic
>
> that supports highly efficient tools.
>
>
>
> In fact, many people use FCA tools to verify that
> ontologies
>
> defined in OWL are consistent. But you can also
> use FCA tools
>
> to *generate* the definitions automatically. See
>
>
>
> http://www.upriss.org.uk/fca/fca.html
>
>
>
> You can find more info about using FCA to check
> consistency
>
> of OWL ontologies by typing three keywords to
> Google:
>
>
>
> FCA OWL concept
>
>
>
> You need the word 'concept' to avoid many
> extraneous hits.
>
>
>
> Important caveat: these logics (DLs,
> intuitionistic logic, and FCA)
>
> are *subsets* of FOL. They are useful for
> defining the hierarchy
>
> (whether you call it type, concept,
> generalization, or subsumption).
>
> But they are *not* general purpose knowledge
> representation languages.
>
> You need more general logics in order to specify
> everything you need
>
> to say (or to program).
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (08)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (09)
"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.
============================================================= (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|