SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example
Ian,
I thought that you merged in either the TOVE or Enterprise Ontologies into
SUMO. Can you remind me which one? Also how did you merge in their notion of
position? They have concepts for position that are disjoint from (allowing
for some interpretation) the notion of agent - which seems to be at odds
with the current structure. I have found (as it looks like TOVE and
Enterprise did) that you need to be careful here. For example, one problem
with the way it seems that SUMO has taken is that positions (rather than
grades) need to have some kind of identity. A good example is the English
Monarch which has a life and responsibilities apart from the people who
occupy the position - and this is clearly stated in the Law (she/he is a
Corporation Sole).
Also this raises the question of whether you flag roling-sub-classes and
distinguish them from typing-sub-class - something Nicola (Guarino) is
strong on. If you do, maybe you point me to where you do this. Is it a
meta-property of the sub-class relation?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ian
Niles
Sent: 22 August 2001 20:04
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example
Chris,
In the current version of the SUMO, your concept of
"executive-position" would be a subclass of 'PersonBySocialRole', which, in
turn, is a subclass of 'CognitiveAgent'. Note that 'CognitiveAgent'
subsumes, but is not identical with, the concept of 'Human' in the SUMO.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:30 AM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: Yang Yun
> Subject: SUO: RE: 2000-7-26 example
>
>
>
> Hi yy,
>
> I think there is some confusion here that touches on an area
> of my current
> research.
>
> I think executive is a sub-type of person (in the legal sense) as are
> Executive Committee, First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the
> Northern Ireland Ministers. In the case of Executive
> Committee we have a
> committee-person and the others a position-person. None of
> these are of
> course human beings, as is clear from an elementary knowledge
> of the law (or
> the TOVE or EO Ontologies).
>
> Of course persons (in the legal sense) can be and often are formed by
> (consist of) other persons. However this must be defined
> quite carefully if
> it is not to lead to odd results.
>
> I presume that SUMO does not identify executive-positions
> with human beings,
> as either the TOVE or EO Ontologies were merged into it.
>
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On
> Behalf Of Yang
> Yun
> Sent: 22 August 2001 17:02
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
>
>
>
>
> >>Perhaps as an example, in identifying the meaning of "executive" in
> >>the following sentence, it will probably not be useful to identify
> >>merely events, properties, attributes, classes, actions and
> >>similar. Instead, one needs at least domain specific knowledge
> >>about possible concepts (and their linguistic realizations) in the
> >>field of "politics".
>
> >>"On his arrival in Belfast, there was no sign of an end to the deep
> >>divisions between Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists on the
> >>formation of a new executive for Northern Ireland and on the
> >>decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons."
>
> >>Nevertheless, I understand the objective of the SUO project is to
> >>define higher levels first which will give anchors for lower level,
> >>domain specific ontologies. This is a reasonable objective,
> >>although it may be more effective to start from the lower levels
> >>and combine, merge them at an appropriate time
> >>into a more abstract higher level ontology.
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul Buitelaar
> >> DFKI Language Technology
> >> Saarbrücken, Germany
> >>
> >> http://www.dfki.de/~paulb/
>
>
>
> This example shows the need to consider domain-specific uses
> of words eg use of executive in UK politics. The meaning is
> defined by statute to be :
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80047--d.htm#20
> or "cabinet" in the US.
>
>
> Adam Pease below argues the example shows that a standard ontology
> could help disambiguate 2 common senses of executive ie manager
> (person) and administration (governing body). Since a person
> cannot form another person, the meaning must be administration.
>
> Maybe not, because Section 20 says the executive is comprised
> of people (first minister, deputy, and others).Why should a
> reasoner know that a person cannot form these people either?
>
> yy
>
> -------included message---------------
> From: apease
> To: Paul Buitelaar ; SUO
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose]
> Date: Saturday, July 22, 2000 2:38 AM
>
>
> Paul,
> I may have misunderstood your example, but it seems to me an
> excellent
> example in fact of how an upper ontology could assist in
> disambiguating
> natural language.
> If we formulate your example sentence loosely as
>
> (instance-of Formulate-Token1 CreationAction)
> (performedBy Formulate-Token1 SinnFein)
> (performedBy Formulate-Token1 UlsterUnionists)
> (objectActedOn Formulate-Token1 Executive-Lexeme2)
>
> and we need to decide which is correct
>
> (instance-of Executive-CompanyManager Executive-Lexeme2)
> or
> (instance-of Executive-GoverningBody Executive-Lexeme2)
>
> and we further assume that these terms have been defined with respect
> to an
> SUO, if the SUO has very general rules that state people can't create
> other
> adult humans, then the NLU system could pick the correct definition
> for the
> instance.
> While the meanings of Executive-GoverningBody, SinnFein etc would
> have
> to be created in a domain specific ontology, the value of the SUO in
> this
> example seems clear to me.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----A-d-v-e-r-t-i-s-e-m-e-n-t-s---B-e-l-o-w--------------
> Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1
> metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com
>
>
>