W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

RE: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL ontology

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05F5D167@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Govoni, Darren" <DGovoni@mcdonaldbradley.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
I have not seen any good definitions clarifying the difference between a
'lexical ontology' vs. other kinds of ontologies.
 
"ontology=taxonomy with relations" is as good or better than any other
view of an ontology, for the sake of discussion.
 
However, the more important issue is not what is or is not an ontology,
but rather, what purpose any 'ontology-like artifact' serves.
Insofar as WN hyper/hyponymy links are inaccuarte, WN will not be
reliable for supporting tasks that require reliable taxonomic inference.
Insofar as WN lacks relation, WN will not provide good support for tasks
that require them.
 
Mike
 

	-----Original Message-----
	[MFU]  
	From: Govoni, Darren [mailto:DGovoni@mcdonaldbradley.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:52 AM
	To: Uschold, Michael F; Aldo Gangemi; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
	Cc: brian.mcbride@hp.com; welty@us.ibm.com; schreiber@cs.vu.nl;
glottolo@ilc.cnr.it; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; swick@w3.org; danbri@w3.org;
guarino@loa-cnr.it; oltramari@loa-cnr.it; ciaramita@loa-cnr.it
	Subject: RE: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL ontology
	
	

	Hi,
	   I haven't chimed in much recently, but I've been working with
WordNet, CYC and various ontologies here at McDonald Bradley for a
while. I even made an OWL version of WordNet about a year ago.
	
	   To the point on whether Wordnet is an ontology, I offer my
opinion based on this, rather simple definition of ontology (forgetting
where I first learned it). ontology=taxonomy with relations.
	
	I see WordNet as something of a lexical ontology. I lacks some
of the machine esoteric, existential abstractions that something like
CYC has. Mileage varies on the utility of that, IMO.
	
	Insomuch as the various OWL models we use manifest in much the
same form (nodes or concepts connected by relations), our WordNet OWL
model is every bit identical in nature to our CYC one. In our graphical
ontology browser, they have exactly the same structure. That is, a graph
(and RDF triples). Hard core ontologists will claim an ontology is a
more formalized class/property/abstraction model (like CYC) whereas
WordNet dismisses generic abstractions in favor of lexical symbols (i.e.
human readble). Personally, I don't find the difference to be terribly
salient. Plato basically posited words to be abstract symbols anyway.
	
	What we've found is that regardless of what you call it most
ontologies are suitable up to a point before extending, modifying or
mapping them to accomplish a goal is necessary. But that is not really a
measure of 'ontology-ness', IMO.
	
	Just my thoughts.
	
	Darren
	
	Senior Architect
	McDonald Bradley
	
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Uschold,
Michael F
	Sent: Wed 2/23/2005 1:04 PM
	To: Aldo Gangemi; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
	Cc: brian.mcbride@hp.com; welty@us.ibm.com; schreiber@cs.vu.nl;
glottolo@ilc.cnr.it; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; swick@w3.org; danbri@w3.org;
guarino@loa-cnr.it; oltramari@loa-cnr.it; ciaramita@loa-cnr.it
	Subject: RE: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL ontology
	
	Here are a few thoughts about WordNet and ontologies gathered
during
	last week's Dagstuhl Workshop on: Machine Learning for the
Semantic Web
	
	The use of WN is more and more prevalent these days, especially
among
	those working with ontologies.
	However, WN is designed as a lexical resource, not an ontology;
it was
	never intended to be an ontology.
	
	Anyone who tries to use WN as an ontology quickly discovers that
many of
	the hyper/hyponymy links are not proper taxonomic links at all.
This
	raises the question as to whether and when WN should be used as
an
	ontology at all.
	
	If you try to use a knife as a can-opener - beware. It sort of
works
	kinda, but you need to be careful.
	
	I dont have an opinion on this, but thought I'd report on these
views
	that I learned of.
	
	It would be useful to have something to say on this point in the
TF
	outputs.
	
	Mike
	
	
	
	        -----Original Message-----
	        From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it]
	        Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:35 AM
	        To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
	        Cc: Uschold, Michael F; brian.mcbride@hp.com;
welty@us.ibm.com;
	schreiber@cs.vu.nl; glottolo@ilc.cnr.it; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com;
	swick@w3.org; danbri@w3.org; guarino@loa-cnr.it;
oltramari@loa-cnr.it;
	ciaramita@loa-cnr.it
	        Subject: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL
ontology
	       
	       
	        Hi all,
	
	        second message for new [WNET] files.
	
	        This message is about a new version of the WordNet
datamodel
	that we started modelling months ago. First versions were
encoded by
	Guus Schreiber and Brian McBride. This version (3) has been
enlarged,
	commented, and checked after the original WordNet specifications
by me.
	It's downloadable from:
	
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet_datamodel.owl.
	Extensive documentation from original sources, and about the
work
	carried out, is contained in the OWL file.
	
	        Best
	        Aldo
	
	
	        --
	
	
	
	        Aldo Gangemi
	        Research Scientist
	        Laboratory for Applied Ontology
	        Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
	        National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
	        Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
	        Tel: +390644161535
	        Fax: +390644161513
	        a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
	       
	        *******************
	        !!! please don't use the old gangemi@ip.rm.cnr.it
	        address, because it is under spam attack
	
	
	
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 15:49:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:15 GMT