Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man

[William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>]

yes, in English and French, for example, there are many words that serve as both adjectives and nouns, like female, rouge, belle, beaux,

moreover, also contrawise to Don Mclure,

who seemingly wants to base an ontology on current standard English,

1. there are a few languages with no adjectives

2. for languages WITH adjectives,

what is expressable as an adjective in one of those languages might be only used as a noun in another and a verb in a third, or as all three, or some pair of the three.  

3. it is difficult to discern, in some languages, whether there are distinct syntactic categories of nouns and adjectives.  Important linguists argue about this.

I would go further than your:

"Ontologies don't need to deal with words and parts of speech."

Ontologies CAN'T be based on words and parts of speech.  OTOH, one goal of an ontology would be to permit one to *map* between the ontology and the words and parts of speech found in any human language.

Wm

Wm

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:59 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, February 12, 2014 13:21, John McClure wrote:
> I wouldn't say a female (an adjective) is a person (noun).

The word "female" is both an adjective and a noun.

Female people (persons) are people/persons.

Female plants, female non-human animals, and female organism parts are
not people/persons.

> Neither female nor male is a subtype of person.
> I argue there are obvious guidelines relating grammatical stuff to
> ontology stuff.
> For instance, adjective-things are never subtypes of noun-things.

Ontologies don't need to deal with words and parts of speech.
The concept of adjective-things and noun-things is not useful
in general for ontologies.  The ways a language uses terms for
various concepts can be informative, of course.

-- doug f



> On 2/12/2014 5:28 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>> 2. "A female is a person". This is a subtype relation, and should more
>> fully
>> be stated "Each female is also a person", or "female is a subtype of
>> person".
>
> On 2/12/2014 5:28 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Up to now I have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that a "time slice" of
>> something refers to a time slice of an individual.
>> [MW>] That is correct.
>> But "man" and "boy"
>> are classes, not individuals, and I need clarification from the experts
>> as
>> to whether a "time slice" can really be a class?  In what formalism is
>> that
>> not possible?
>> [MW>] Well individual is also a class, man and boy are just classes
>> whose
>> members are timeslices of some person.
>>
>> If an ontology is to be used in Natural Language Processing (a critical
>> application, IMHO), then it should diverge from linguistic usage only
>> where
>> necessary.  I agree that language has some aspects that do not translate
>> well into the logical format of ontologies, but the subclass relation of
>> "boy" to "person" seems very well established in ordinary usage, and if
>> any
>> ontology formalism cannot represent that relation, I do not see much of
>> a
>> future for that formalism.
>> [MW>] We say that a man is a person, but this is very ambiguous. There
>> are
>> at least three interpretations of "is a" and we usually leave the
>> distinguishing pieces out:
>>
>> 1. "Matthew is a person". This is a classification relation, and should
>> more
>> fully be stated "Matthew is an instance of person."
>> 2. "A female is a person". This is a subtype relation, and should more
>> fully
>> be stated "Each female is also a person", or "female is a subtype of
>> person".
>> 3. "A boy is a person". This is a temporal part relation and should more
>> fully be stated "Each boy is a state (or stage, or part of the life) of
>> a
>> person".
>>
>> One of the problems with language is that we leave out as much context
>> as we
>> think we can get away with, and sometimes find we have left out too
>> much.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Matthew West
>> Information  Junction
>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>> England
>> and Wales No. 6632177.
>> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
>> Hertfordshire,
>> SG6 2SU.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> Patrick Cassidy
>> MICRA Inc.
>> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>> 1-908-561-3416
>>
>>
>>   >-----Original Message-----
>>   >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
>>   >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:49 PM
>>   >To: [ontolog-forum]
>>   >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man  >  >On Tue, February
>> 11,
>> 2014 15:13, Ali H wrote:
>>   >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:48 PM, John McClure  >>
>> <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>   >
>>   >>>  Take a Person for example, with subclasses Boy and Man.
>>   >*[MW] The main
>>   >>>> problem with this is that Boy and Man are not subtypes of person.
>>   >>>> For Boy and Man to be subtypes of Person, each Boy is a Person,
>> and
>>>>>> each Man is a (different) Person.
>>   >>>> What would be correct is that Boy and Man a subtypes of  >>>>
>> StateOfPerson, and that each StateOfPerson is a temporalPart of a  >>>>
>> Person.*  >  >This is forcing a 4D view on those who don't wish to use
>> it.
>>   >
>>   >Instead of claiming one model is (in)correct, it would be nicer to
>> say,
>> "In the  >4D model, non-rigid classes such as Boy and Man, are not
>> subtypes
>> of rigid  >classes such as Person.  A 4D model would consider Boy and
>> Man to
>> be  >subtypes of a non-rigid StateOfPerson, and ..."
>>   >
>>   >>> To most people, and dictionaries, Boy and Man are subtypes of
>> Person.
>>   >
>>   >The relation "subtype" means that any instance of the first thing
>> are
>>> instances of the second thing.  In 4D a Man or Boy is a time slice of a
>>> MalePerson.
>>   >For
>>   >someone using 3D(+1) at any time there is an instance of a Man or
>> Boy,
>> that  >instance is also an instance of Person.
>>   >
>>   >>> Second, should a KB contain both a Boy & Man resource about a
>> given
>>>>> individual, owl:sameAs would be used to indicate their equivalence
>>>>> >>>
>> otherwise, yes, they would be a different person, as they should be.
>>   >
>>   >If Man & Boy were defined as disjoint, then nothing could
>> simultaneously
>> be  >an instance of both.  But something could in one context be an
>> instance
>> of  >one and in another context be an instance of the other.
>>   >
>>   >> First, you might want to take a look at the Ontoclean paper
>> [1],[2].
>>   >> In this view, Boy is not Rigid, and hence not recommended to be  >>
>> related to a Person via a subtype relationship.
>>   >
>>   >All this means is that Ontoclean promotes a 4D view.  If this is
>> merely a
>>> recommendation it does not require 4D.
>>   >
>>   >>> Third, StateofPerson is a wholly artificial term, lacking both
>> >>>
>> practical merit and semantic credibility. Fourth, this is a fine  >>>
>> example of ontologists' implicit saintliness modelling 'concepts' not
>>> 'language'.
>>   >
>>   >> Secondly, from your posts to this forum, this (the privileging or
>> >>
>> equating ontology to language) seems to be a major point of departure
>> >>
>> from your perspective and (I suspect) many ontologists on the list.
>>   >
>>   >I agree.  Language can inform ontologies but they are quite
>> different.
>>   >
>>   >If computer ontologies were originated by speakers of a language that
>>> differentiates "is currently" from "is necessarily", that distinction
>>> would
>> be  >part of the ontology language.  There would be classes which
>> instances
>> are  >necessarily members of, and classes which instances may be members
>> of
>> for  >part of their existence (of which subclasses would be necessarily
>>   >(non)
>>   >initial, necessarily (non) final, and those which an instance can
>> join and
>> leave  >multiple times).  It would also probably have resulted in three
>> or
>> more  >subclass/subtype relations: one between rigid classes, one
>> between
>> non-  >rigid and rigid classes, and one (or more) between non-rigid
>> classes.
>>   >
>>   >-- doug
>>   >
>>   >> Langauge and
>>   >> ontology *are not* the same things. While language may contain many
>>  >>
>> clues as to how ontologically model something, it is only that - a clue.
>>   >> ...
>>   >
>>   >> I suspect the majority of ontologists have come to at least the  >>
>> following conclusions:
>>   >>
>>   >>    1. Ontology != Language
>>   >>    2. There are serious limits to linguistic clues in building an
>>   >> ontology ...
>>   >
>>   >> Best,
>>   >> Ali
>>   >>
>>   >
>>   >
>>   >
>>   >__________________________________________________________
>>   >_______
>>   >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
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>



_________________________________________________________________
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)