Gary,
The operational question is: Whose
definition will be used for which concept?
The consistent result on this email list
has been that we (presumably with an adequate understanding of ontology
principles) disagree emphatically on every ontology that has so far been
discussed, with the exception of Dublin Core.
It would seem to be a reasonable
conclusion that ontologies are personal systems of what each individual
believes exists. That means that when you put together a lot of people
who “define” an ontology, you get the usual result of a politically
complicit elephant where a mouse would do well.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013
1:16 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
"I don't believe in word senses." Sue Atkins
Still would we agree that "defitional" ideas
term/wordsenses as assembled in dictionaries. glossaries and the like are
useful places
to look when trying to develop ontologies?
SOCoP Executive Secretary
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The subject line is a
quotation by the professional lexicographer
Sue Atkins. She certainly knows what she's talking about, as her
Wikipedia entry indicates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._T._S._Atkins
Adam Kilgarriff, a computational linguist, used that quotation as
the title of a widely cited paper:
http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/Publications/1997-K-CHum-believe.pdf
From the abstract of that paper:
> Word sense disambiguation assumes word senses. Within the lexicography
> and linguistics literature, they are known to be very slippery entities.
> The paper looks at problems with existing accounts of `word sense' and
> describes the various kinds of ways in which a word's meaning can deviate
> from its core meaning. An analysis is presented in which word senses
> are abstractions from clusters of corpus citations, in accordance with
> current lexicographic practice. The corpus citations, not the word senses,
> are the basic objects in the ontology. The corpus citations will be
> clustered into senses according to the purposes of whoever or whatever
> does the clustering. In the absence of such purposes, word senses do not
exist.
I strongly agree with both Sue A. and Adam K. on those issues. I won't
say that I completely agree with either or both on everything, but the
points they make are always well informed and well worth considering.
Following are Adam's publications:
http://trac.sketchengine.co.uk/wiki/AK/Papers
Annotations can be useful for many applications. But in general, they
must always be considered approximations for some specific purpose in
the context for which they were developed. This fact has been very
well known to translators for centuries.
John
PS: Beryl Atkins adopted the name Sue because her husband couldn't
pronounce 'Beryl'.
_________________________________________________________________
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|