SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example
Chris,
Thanks for your message. See my replies below.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:00 AM
> To: Ian Niles
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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?
I did include elements from the Enterprise Ontology. I didn't use TOVE,
because when someone on the list mentioned it a few months back, I couldn't
find a reference online. I now see that there is a manual available at
http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/tove/ontoTOC.html, and I'll have a look at this
as time permits. Can you suggest anything else I should look at regarding
TOVE?
>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).
The example of Monarch is a good one, and I agree that, in general, we do
need to distinguish positions from the people who (temporarily) occupy them.
Accordingly, I propose that we replace the class 'PersonBySocialRole' (which
is a subclass of 'CognitiveAgent') with the class 'SocialRole', which will
be defined as a subclass of 'Attribute'. We can then make positions like
'Monarch' instances of 'SocialRole' (or perhaps, more specifically, of
subclasses of 'SocialRole', like 'OccupationalRole' or 'GovernmentalRole').
This will allow us to relate people to the roles they occupy (via the binary
relation 'attribute'), but it will also permit us to distiguish people and
roles. What do you think?
>
> 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?
I think we can generalize the approach described in my previous response to
get the typing/roling distinction. What do you think?
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>