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 12:52:11 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF0583C29F@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Aldo Gangemi" <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, "Govoni, Darren" <DGovoni@mcdonaldbradley.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Aldo:
 
Thanks for the definition of a lexical ontology.
It seems to be rooted not in the nature of the beast, but more in the
nature of how the beast is created, and to an extent, what it is
intended to be used for.
IF the starting point is a bunch of words or phrases that one wants to
have a model of, *and*
IF if the intended use entails [somethign like] language parsing, or
lexical analysis of some sort... then one is more likley to call it a
lexical ontology.
 
On retrofitting 'lexical' terms to an otherwise non-lexical ontology...
I suppose one shoudl always be able to come up with phrases that
correspond to the meaning of the concepts in any ontology. 
Im not sure it helps or explains much to say this makes it a 'lexical
ontology', since the phrases are kind of invented, not arising from an
existing lexicon.
 
Mike
 
 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it] 
	Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:14 AM
	To: Uschold, Michael F; Govoni, Darren
	Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
	Subject: RE: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL ontology
	
	
	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 20:52:49 GMT

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