Dear John,
I understand your frustration, but the
fact is simply that people do not use words in the same ways that linguists and
philosophers use them. There is no “authoritative” source on which
to base the vocabulary. You may decide that a specific vocabulary is “normative”,
but when you actually test this assertion, you will find it is so far from true
as to be nearly useless.
If students are so far misled to assume
that authoritarian statements are actually true about language, they are being
poorly educated. The purpose of education is to help students understand that
there is no authoritative vocabulary, and that they should be questioning in
the face of authoritarianism, not accepting of it as anything but an opinion of
one person who has studied the material and may have some useful insights.
-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 John McClure
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
2:25 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man
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
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|