You should have a look at Paul Builelaar et al's work on LEMON: e.g.,
http://lexinfo.net/lemon-cookbook.pdf. Builds on earlier work on LMF, etc. (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:41 PM
>To: William Frank
>Cc: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Person, Boy, Man
>
>On Wed, February 12, 2014 15:26, William Frank wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.
>
>An ontology that does this deals with words and parts of speech.
>
>
>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.
>
>-- doug foxvog
>
>> 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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|