Dear John, (01)
Indeed we agree that you cannot go from language to ontology without thought
in between. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (04)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 07 February 2012 13:33
> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Roles, Fillers, and Role Relations
>
> Dear Matthew,
>
> I completely agree with that point:
>
> > So let's not rehearse the arguments again.
>
> But note that we also agree that logic is necessary to define
> and use our our ontologies.
>
> The exercise of analyzing how English sentences that involve
> roles are translated to logic illustrates the issues without
> getting bogged down in debates about religious dogma.
>
> At the end of this note is a copy of the examples I gave
> in my earlier note on this topic with any comments about
> controversial issues deleted.
>
> In terms of logic, some adjectives, such as 'brown' or 'elderly',
> apply to the individual instance, independent of what role that
> individual happens to play. For those adjectives, we can represent
> the Adj-Noun combination with a simple conjunction in logic:
>
> Brown(x) & Bear(x), Elderly(x) & Physicist(x).
>
> But other adjectives, such as 'stuffed' or 'nuclear', modify the
> definition of the noun. For those, we need to define a new
> predicate, such as StuffedBear(x) or NuclearPhysicst(x), that
> combines the information in the definition of the noun with
> the information in the definition of the adjective:
>
> StuffedBear -- an object in the shape of a bear that is made
> of a fuzzy covering and stuffed with some soft material.
>
> NuclearPhysicist -- a physicist who specializes in research
> on the physics of atomic nuclei and elementary particles.
>
> Note that combined predicate can require extensive, context-
> dependent modifications of the definitions of Adj and/or Noun.
>
> By the way, I'd like to point out a horrible example of a system
> that did not make this distinction. It used a uniform method
> of representing any Adj-Noun combination by a simple conjunction.
> In operation, it accepted English sentences, translated them to
> its version of logic, and answered questions about them.
>
> As an example, the user could type in the following assertions:
>
> Bob is a good musician.
> Bob is a bad cook.
>
> Then the system would answer yes to all the following questions:
>
> Is Bob a good musician?
> Is Bob a good cook?
> Is Bob a bad musician?
> Is Bob a bad cook?
> Is Bob a good bad musician cook?
>
> This system was not ready for prime time.
>
> John
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> From a note of 6 Feb 2012 on the same subject:
>
> Consider a bear vs. a Teddy bear. Adjectives in English qualify the
> noun. But the question is whether they qualify the individual instances
> or whether they qualify the definition of the noun itself.
>
> Some adjectives are called "privative" because they deprive the noun
> of critical qualities -- for example, fake bear or counterfeit money.
> A good test of how an adjective is related to the noun is to paraphrase
> the combination "Adj N" as "N that is Adj". For example,
>
> brown bear -> a bear that is brown
>
> Teddy bear -> a bear that is Teddy
>
> fake bear -> a bear that is fake
>
> elderly physicist -> a physicist that is elderly
>
> nuclear physicist -> a physicist that is nuclear
>
> reckless driver -> a driver that is reckless
>
> licensed driver -> a driver that is licensed
>
> For some examples, it makes no sense at all to move the
> adjective after the verb 'is', as in 'Teddy' or 'nuclear'.
>
> For some, such as 'brown' or 'elderly', that is possible
> and the combination can be translated by a simple conjunction.
> Examples include 'brown' and 'elderly'.
>
> For 'Teddy' and 'fake', the sentence is false because no
> actual bear can be Teddy or fake.
>
> For others, such as 'reckless' or 'licensed', the meaning
> is not necessarily false, but the connection between the
> role and the adjective is broken. For example, somebody
> might be safe as a driver and licensed as a veterinarian,
> but reckless and unlicensed in other aspects of life.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
|