Re: input document for discussion on Friday

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> **
> Guido, all,
>
>  I appreciate your comments. Before continuing to discuss the ontological
> status of a sense, let me provide some working definitions for "Sense" and
> "representedBy".
>
Quick query... surely it is "represents" not "representedBy" as the lexical
entry represents an ontological concept

Regards,
John

>
> Sense: meaning of a word w when intrepreted as referring to ontological
> concept c.
>
> And yes, we represent the connection between w and c through sense as a
> reification.
>
> representedBy:  this captures the relation between a sense s and some
> symbol c (constant). The semantics of "representedBy" is something like:  s
> is representedBy c <-> the axiomatization in c captures the ontological
> commitment of s
>
> This means that we assume that there is some ontological commitment in
> words and that this ontological commitment can be axiomatized (or not) in
> some ontology.
>
> This still allows to be less or more vague. If we do not add any axioms
> constraining the interpretation of a symbol, then we are maximally vague.
>
> So, if we take the word "bald", there is sure some ontological commitment
> in this word. For instance, Bruce Willis (see attached picture) is clearly
> bald, while Slash (the guitarist of Guns N' Roses) is not (see picture). So
> there is some clear ontological committment of the word "bald", though in
> other cases it might not be that clear-cut.
>
> Hope this makes sense and helps to clarify the notions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
>
>
>
> Am 01.11.12 11:43, schrieb Guido Vetere:
>
>
> Am 31.10.12 13:35, schrieb Guido Vetere:
>
> > the model of Sense as (sub)classes that I've recommended (as is
> > implemented in Senso Comune) would look like the following:
> >
> > ex:lemon rdf:type ontolex:Lex.
> >
> > ex:lemon ontolex:hasSense lemon_1.
> >
> > ex:lemon_1 rdf:type (ontolex:Sense AND ontolex:denotes ONLY <http://
> > dbpedia.org/page/Lemon>).
> >
> > Of course, if you want you can introduce a named class, like
> >
> > mylex:Lemon_as_fruit owl:equivalentClass (ontolex:Sense AND
> > ontolex:denotes ONLY <http://dbpedia.org/page/Lemon>)
> >
> > to have:
> >
> > ex:lemon_1 rdf:type mylex:Lemon_as_fruit
> >
> > Can we consider this as another option?
> >
>
> Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de><cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>wrote on 31/10/2012 17:24:05:
>
> > Guido,
> >
> >  yes, of course, this is an option. But where do you see the
> > advantage compared to directly saying that the sense is a subclass
> > of the class in question?
> >
>
> Philipp,
>
> I think it depends on what ontology concepts and sense, respectively,
> represent in your system. If they are both representations of the same kind
> of things, then maybe there's not a clear advantage in the model I suggest.
> Actually, in many IT artifacts called 'ontology', concepts are
> indistinguishable from linguistic senses, so I understand where the
> question comes from.
>
> On the other hand, if the ontology that you want to map with your lexicon
> is intended to be a 'theory of the reality' independent from any language,
> then you wouldn't say, for example, that the sense 'cat' in English is an
> instance of the concept 'cat' (or a subclass) and therefore is expected to
> have four legs and a tail. In other words, if you want 'Sense' to stand for
> a specific kind of things, then you need to be 'multiplicative', i.e.
> introduce an entity 'Sense' besides the entity you want it to refer to, in
> order to keep predication on linguistic facts in a distinguished place.
> Once again, if you are happy with saying that cats don't have four legs,
> but they are just said to have four legs (in this view, mereology is just
> another name of meronimy) then the distinction between senses and other
> classes may appear to you as a useless sophistry (if not a dangerous
> dogmatism).
>
> I can provide several arguments in favour of a multiplicative approach.
> One of them, as discussed some time ago, has to do with vagueness. But I
> think that we should be liberal with respect to different views of what
> senses are from an ontological standpoint. If I understand the discussion
> we have been doing so far correctly, we agreed to reify senses, which
> means, at least, having them as mediating elements in data structures that
> bring words and concepts together. Let's give a shape to this structure and
> allow different formal ontological interpretations for it. Then we may
> discuss pros and cons of each of them.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome                                     Trento
> Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento, Italy
> +39 (0)6 59662137                 +39 (0)461 312312
>
> Mobile: +39 3357454658
> _________________________________________________
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di
> International Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> Semantic Computing Group
> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> University of Bielefeld
>
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld
>
>