Some (we do) model both the linguistic semantics side (e.g., verbs, etc.) and the events they “denote” on the ontological side. The former address lexical semantics
typically, with NLP/computational linguistics applications then performing the compositional semantics that map to the (composed) denotations. Some events will be requests, commands, etc. Obviously this depends on the application: if you don’t have human language
input, you don’t need the lexical/semantic resources.
Event ontologies do often follow semantic conventions, e.g., achievements, accomplishments, cognitive states, etc. And performatives. A request event can include
a “question” event, i.e, requesting information much like a query. A query is a kind of event.
The old (and maybe current) Agent Control Languages such as KQML and FIPA’s (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents) ACL called out performatives as agent-based
pragmatics that could then apply to propositional content expressed in ontology/knowledge representation languages, i.e., ontological constructs. Intelligent agents would thus communicate using perfomatives with ontological assertions/queries as a kind of
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Bottoms
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands
I concur with BillF's observation. But I think we need to address the question more broadly in order to understand how the analysis works.
If I say, "Twist the celery!", that statement entails other entities. It is a statement, a part of a procedure as Bill said, that only makes sense if it is given to someone else, so that invokes all of the concepts necessary of a duality analysis. These include:
an actor, a context and a temporal setting, at a minimum.
In terms of commands, does it make sense to group all commands together somewhere in the ontology? Is there a lexicon of commands? Do cooking commands go in the same ontology as hunting commands? (I should observe that a linguist might very well follow a subject
around for a week, writing down all commands together, but it would likely be an intermediate step in the creation of a lexicon.)
In my view it makes more sense to start with a problem statement. What was going on when someone said "twist the celery"? I believe you can only do a semantic or linguistic analysis, once you understand what problem is to be solved. And, You may want to stop
at the point of a semantic analysis when you have understood the concepts, and don't need to understand them in a context. But the more complete view is that a command entails the completion of a task within a context at some time, and it assumes that some
reporting is implied. (5 minutes later, "aye sir, the celery has been twisted!")
I would also need to know if the command can be applied to oneself, such as "I need to remember to 'twist the celery'", when I go to the grocery store. In that sense the command is one of a number of meanings or rules, that I prepare to be executed at some
On 4/27/2012 7:01 PM, William Frank wrote:
You bring up what to me is a critical missing ingredient in most computer communications:
a command is a kind of speech act.
consider the _expression_ of a proposition
cat in box
this gives us a picture of the way something in the world *could* be
a command is a direction to some actor to make the proposition true:
command to Tom (cat in box)
in English, "tom, put the cat in the box"
similary, a question is a speech act
question (cat in box)
in English: is the cat in the box?
invarient rule (cat in box)
in English" the cat must be in the box at all times
statement (cat in box)
In English: the cat IS in the box.
so could be
hope (cat in box)
like when (cat in box)
So, when one systems just sends another a picture of a transaction, what is missing is whether this is a request to make execute the transaction, and what system is expected to carry out the request, versus whether this is an assertion that the transaction
has been exectuted, and by whom, etc
When the speech act and the actors are made explicit, the two communcating systems are more loosely coupled to each other, and better interoperation can be achieved.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Burkett, William [USA] <burkett_william@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, Ontologists – I’ve got a question that’s been ping-ponging around my brain lately and thought I’d solicit your input.
What is a “command” in an ontological sense? I can certainly envision a hierarchical part-of structure of commands, but is it accurate to interpret this as a kind of process decomposition
(e.g., a Script in the sense of
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm)? While a process connotes a “do”, it doesn’t necessary connote “go do”, as a command/imperative would. What is a “command” in the real world?
Context of question: In a SOA-based software development effort, how would ontological principles help with naming/function of services and commands offered through the service
What do you think? (Is that a dangerous question to ask this crowd? ;-))
William C. Burkett
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
121 S Tejon St # 900 | Suite 900 South Tower | Colorado Springs, CO, 80903
719-387-6452 | M: 310-318-5500 | F:
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.