- From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:59 +0100
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, "Govoni, Darren" <DGovoni@mcdonaldbradley.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <p0611043fbe441fd7438f@[80.181.111.167]>
At 12:52 -0800 24-02-2005, Uschold, Michael F wrote: >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. > yes, that's a point: how much ontology organization depends on linguistic normalization? maybe three layers: 1) whatever lexicalization the designer likes in order to catch its intuition ("kind of invented", actually: "subjective") 2) lexicalization emerging from learning procedures (not invented, but neither "normalized" or "conventional", actually: "observable") 3) conventional or normalized lexicalization through lexicographic procedures (actually: "agreed") I think each layer has its own original motivation, as well as ontologies have. I've a taste for 2) whenever possible, but when strong negotiation is required, 1) is better, and there is so much existing in 3)! Let alone the encrusted meta-talk from philosophy, linguistics, lexicography, etc., which has its own independent life. A >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 -- 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 Friday, 25 February 2005 09:00:36 UTC