Dear Matthew, (01)
On that point, we are in complete agreement: (02)
MW
> Indeed we agree that you cannot go from language to ontology without
> thought in between. (03)
But that statement, by itself, doesn't provide any guidelines about the
issues to think about, how to represent them, and what to do about them. (04)
A guideline I recommended in my books and email discussions can be used
with any computable representation, whether declarative (logic like)
or procedural (program like): (05)
1. State whatever you need to represent in simple English sentences
(or whatever NL you prefer). (06)
2. Analyze any word or phrase from point #1 that is unclear, and
decide how it could be defined in first-order logic + set theory.
(For anybody who would like a quick overview of math and logic,
see http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/math.htm ) (07)
3. Then translate each sentence to the target notation by using
the definitions from point #2. (08)
This method is independent of any ontology or target language. (09)
By the way, in my previous note I forgot to mention one of my favorite
examples of Noun-Noun phrases: steamer clams vs. steamer duck. (010)
1. Steamer clams are clams that are cooked by steaming. (011)
2. A steamer duck is a duck that flaps its wings when it takes off
and looks like a paddle-wheel steamer. (012)
This illustrates the point that the way a modifier is related
to the following noun can be highly context dependent. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (015)
|