On Wed, February 12, 2014 15:26, William Frank wrote:
> ...
> I would go further than your: (01)
> "Ontologies don't need to deal with words and parts of speech." (02)
> 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. (03)
An ontology that does this deals with words and parts of speech. (04)
I would say that an ontology of natural language must be based on words
and parts of speech -- as classes of objects in the ontology. An NL ontology
could use such an ontology to map between instances of NL words, phrases,
clauses, and sentences and other concepts. (05)
-- doug foxvog (06)
> 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
>>
>>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|