[Fwd: [semanticweb] SUO:Does it intend to put all words in]
[from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/semanticweb/message/1021
forwarded to SUO as zhou jingtao is not a member]
Objet:
[semanticweb] SUO:Does it intend to put all
words in
Date:
Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:12:47 +0800
De:
"周竞涛" <zhoujt@mail.nwpu.edu.cn>
A:
semanticweb@yahoogroups.com
At Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:46:23 -0700, Richard
Cooper Wrote:
>... that SUMO has added more
>content to WordNet, and I'm sure still
more will follow.
Does SUO intend to put all the words used
by humankind into one single Ontology?
If not, how does it decide which one is
more important than others?
As language of human is evolutional, how
can we keep a reasonable size of SUO?
Thanks!
====================================
=================
* zhou jingtao
*
* National Specialty Laboratory of
CAD/CAM, *
* Northwestern Polytechnical University,
Xi’an, *
* China,
*
*
*
* Phone: +86 029 849322 -312
*
=====================================================
在您的来信中曾经提到:
>From:Richard Cooper <rich@valutech.com>
>Reply-To:
>To: 'Adam Pease'
<apease@ks.teknowledge.com>, 'Jean-Luc
Delatre'
<jld@club-internet.fr>
>Subject: [semanticweb] RE: SUO: Re:
Finding an upper ontology
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>> It sounds like you've already looked
at WordNet, but it
>> has at least
>> some of what you may be working on - a
list of verbs that
>> state actions
>> that are implied by the occurrence of
an action of the first
>> verb. For
>> example, killing causes dying
>> <
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn1.7.1?stage=2&wo
>>
rd=killing&posnumber=2&searchtypenumber=14&senses=1&showglosses=1>.
>> SUMO expands on this a bit since there
are axioms that can
>> define a whole
>> set of things which follow from the
occurrence of an action,
>> and which are
>> more specific than the informal WordNet
gloss. A counterpart
>> to the above
>> WordNet example is in SUMO at
>> <
http://192.168.200.76:8080/sigma/skb.jsp?req=skb_sx&skb=SUMO_
>> skb&term=Killing>
>> where the second rule states not only
that a Death occurs as
>> the result of
>> a Killing but that the experiences of
the Death is the object
>> of the Killing.
>>
>> Adam
>
>Thanks Adam, it helps to remember that
SUMO has added more
>content to WordNet, and I'm sure still
more will follow.
>
>My focus right now is on toolware that
can support the kinds
>of ontology results coming out of
SUO/SUMO/CYC/IFF. The
>underlying structure of the
representation is my present
>concern while these ontologies are still
developing. Hopefully
>any tools emerging from this effort can
be applied to all
>of the above.
>
>Rich
>
>
>
>>Richard Cooper wrote:
>>
>> >Jean-Luc Delatre wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Richard Cooper wrote in:
>> > >
>> >
>> <
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09686.html>
http://suo.ieee.org/e
>> mail/msg09686.html
>> >
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > Philosophers and metaphysicians are
not going to take you
>> seriously
>> > > if you pretend to tackle the
problem only at some syntactic level,
>> > > that is, by looking at the common
structure of sentences
>> > > (yet, above the lexical level of
character
>> > > codes and XML tags).
>> >
>> >I intended to define a representation
of the words that were
>> >used, which is syntactic, along with
the several meanings
>> >that were used to represent the OAV
attributions of the
>> >understanding process. So I didn't
mean to imply that ONLY
>> >the syntactic process is needed. I
just wanted to explore
>> >a way to represent the sequence of
assertions or inferences
>> >that are drawn from the utterance,
much in the same way
>> >that the registry is being discussed
as a way to organize
>> >the OAV assignments in ontologies and
in the IFF.
>> >
>> >Previously, I've played with this kind
of idea in relating
>> >dynamically changing OAV assignments
in the context of events.
>> >Since sentences in a discourse
describe a sequence of events,
>> >what I'm looking for is a way to
organize the OAV history,
>> >which is the semantic end product of
the understanding process,
>> >against the initial sentential forms
that lead to the OAV
>> >attributions.
>> >
>> >The reason I find this interesting is
that it could provide
>> >a sort of IDE for debugging theories
of language understanding
>> >against available ontologies, when and
if they do become
>> >available.
>> >
>> > > PARADOXICALLY that might be the way
to go!
>> > > Because, (witness the arguments
between John Sowa and Stephen
>> > > Downes in:
>> > >
>> >
><http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09664.html>
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09664.
>html)
>>
>> > reaching an agreement on MEANING,
even the meaning of
>> > "nothing" is probably hopeless!
>>
>>Most conversations are dynamic because
people are changing
>>their word use and syntax to match the
understanding process
>>of transferring information back and
forth among them.
>>So although no two of use will ever
agree about a large
>>dictionary, each one in a conversation
maintains a
>>dynamically changing dictionary.
Conversation changes them.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>> > But, are not we talking to each other
at this very moment?
>> > And does not those furious postings
make SOME sense to everybody?
>> >
>> > Of course, surely not the same sense
to everyone, but there
>> > is some SHARED meaning,
>> > albeit the "share" could be different
and differently
>> > distorted for each of us.
>>
>>[snip]
>> >
>> > By assuming "similar" meanings of the
same word used by
>> > different locutors
>> > we get perilously close to the "Cyc
philosophy" (identical
>> > meanings) which is known to fail.
>>
>>Why do you feel that it is known to
fail? Even WordNet
>>uses alternative synsets for the same
spelling. We all
>>use WordNet words in some of those
synset forms, as well
>>as other forms and words not in WordNet.
That doesn't mean
>>that WordNet fails. It simply means
that the complexity
>>of language is so high that we can't
find a simple solution.
>>This is not unexpected after all the
limited success of
>>every language understanding project so
far.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>> > Cheers.
>> >
>> > -- Jean-Luc Delatre
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Rich