ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Labeling relations and grover models (merger of two thre

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:52:14 -0400
Message-id: <519D13DE.1000401@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phil and Ed,    (01)

These two threads address closely related topics.    (02)

PM
> that doesn't address the issue of whether English is
> appropriate or optimal for this purpose.    (03)

Any NL is useful for the people who speak it.  But all NLs are
quirky, and no NL is significantly better or worse than any other
as a general knowledge representation language.    (04)

PM
> "hasDisease" and "hasPossession" are much better. But they're not
> English. They are a part of a special vocabulary with roots in English.
> Users have to read the documentation, as Doug noted elsewhere.    (05)

I agree.  But don't assume that users read documentation.  Note the
universal proverb:  "When all else fails, read the documentation."    (06)

PM
> I think there's room for better solutions -- solutions that
> could also be applied in disciplines that are not normally
> discussed in this forum.    (07)

I agree, but it varies from one domain to another.  For any subject,
the subject-matter experts are, by definition, the experts.    (08)

EJB
> a popular misconception that arises from thinking that
> models follow naturally from careful natural language.    (09)

Yes.  I encourage the use of controlled NLs as an interface
to semantic systems.  But the normative version should always
be some formally defined logic.    (010)

EJB
> SBVR makes this mistake:  treating 'has' as a 'verb concept'.
> As John says, the verb *concept* is 'has sister' or 'has instance'.    (011)

SBVR is an interesting use of controlled English.  But they made
the mistake of using the CNL the definitive form.    (012)

In English, 'be', 'have', and 'do' are classified as verbs, but their
syntax is distinctly different from "normal" verbs, and they have
very little semantic content.  They should not be used by themselves
as relation names.    (013)

John    (014)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (015)

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