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

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

From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:14:01 +0100
Message-Id: <p06110432be43ab1972a1@[80.181.111.167]>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, "Govoni, Darren" <DGovoni@mcdonaldbradley.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Mike: reliability and the right analytic detail for the 
task at hand are the essential requisites for a good ontology.
How to get them, it's another story. How to measure them, still 
another. WordNet can be good for its generality, which is also its 
weakness. That's why the TF contains an activity aimed at indicating 
how to use WordNet to create something else. In the meantime, WordNet 
seems to be useful in many cases.

Concerning lexical ontologies, there is a quite straightforward 
definition: if the elements of an ontology (classes, properties, and 
individuals, possibly axioms) depend primarily on the acceptance of 
existing lexical entries, the ontology can be called "lexical". 
WordNet, formal or not, it's such a case.

But one can force this statement, by saying that if one is able to 
build a comprehensible paraphrase in some natural language of each 
ontology element, then that's a linguistically-sound ontology. Which 
holds for most (if not all) ontologies.

Therefore, "lexical" depends on the agreement of lexicographers. In 
fact, if we use an ontology learning technique from corpora, and 
state the boundaries of lexical units according to dynamic functional 
properties, such an ontology would be very different from a "lexical" 
ontology.

Cheers
Aldo

At 7:49 -0800 24-02-2005, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>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>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>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


-- 



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 16:14:38 GMT

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