No William I do not want to base an ontology on current standard
English. Rather, I refer to the relationships between generic
linguistic structure/roles and generic semantic structures/roles.
And everyone here knows that an obligation of any ontology is to
define a controlled vocabulary that designates a particular
definition as normative within its domain, in the case 'female' as
the adjective 'female things'. Reading about the childish fact that
female is both an adjective and a noun, is so unproductive I wonder
why I'm bothering anymore (and being "corrected" about female vs
females, no shit sherlock).
I'm really tired of this. The "ways a language uses terms" as
documented in socially-understood normative resources is precisely
what establishes the credibility of an ontology, otherwise such
depends solely on the credibility of its author(s). But as Doug so
blatantly says, authorities look to these resources only for
guidance while I am saying students look to them for
authority. However when there's such disagreement about basics
like Person Man Boy, then one has to wonder why these resources are
not equally definitive for said authorities. I surely know of no
definitive ontology published by said authorities to which I,
as student, can look for authority. Logically, if I have only
dictionaries as an unequivocal starting point, and said authorities
do not, then I shall forever battle a chorus of assertions that the
content of dictionaries is substantively irrelevant to the
construction of ontologies. It all begins to look to me a formula
for wasting everyone's time (if not the public's money), so yeah,
I'm really tired of tilting. /jmc
On 2/12/2014 12:26 PM, William Frank
wrote:
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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|