SUO: RE: RE: Axiomatizing lower level WordNet terms

[Ian Niles <iniles@teknowledge.com>]

Title: RE: Axiomatizing lower level WordNet terms

Tim,

 

    In the latest version of the mappings, as Adam pointed out in his follow-up message, the WordNet synset "food-WN00011575" is mapped to the SUMO concept 'Food'.  And, in the SUMO, 'Food' is not a subclass of 'Artifact'.

 

-Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim King [mailto:tmk@LSC.CO.UK]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:19 AM
To: 'Adam Pease'; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: RE: Axiomatizing lower level WordNet terms

I am sure that I will regret this but ... surely, there is a more fundamental issue here?  You have mapped "food" to "artifact".  The WordNet definition of "artifact" is "a man-made object taken as a whole".  This appears to either mean that the mapping is only partial or the SUMO definition for "artifact" is not the same as the WordNet definition (because I thought that bears eat berries as food).  In either case, what is the value of what you have done and the strategy of dealing with the resultant issue?  In particular, if you have different definitions than in WordNet, how do you know which to take and which not to?

Cheers,
Tim.

P.S.  Did you mention 35,000 terms in a previous message ... I do not have much to do this weekend ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 06 March 2002 19:40
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Axiomatizing lower level WordNet terms
>
>
>
> Folks,
>    One minor correction.  The example I used was not a good
> one as Food is
> already in SUMO and we have that mapping.  A better example
> would have been
> a term like "rescue" which is mapped currently to Removing.
>
> Adam
>
>
> Folks,
>    It occurred to me that there might be significant numbers
> of folks on
> this list who would like to contribute formal content, but
> who may not have
> the background to tangle with extensively researched topics
> like temporal
> or spatial representation.  As Ian announced a while ago,
> we've done a
> large number of mappings from SUMO to WordNet.  Because SUMO
> is just an
> upper level, many lower-level WordNet terms map to a very
> general SUMO
> term.  This mapping provides a framework for people who wish
> to create new
> content.  Pick a term that has a mapping to an overly general
> SUMO term and
> try to formalize the comment for that term.
>    The latest WordNet mappings are available at
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/WNinKI
F.txt?rev=1.12&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup>.
For example, take the concept "food"

food-WN00011575 : "any substance that can be metabolized by an organism to
give energy and build tissue"

We've mapped that to the SUMO term of Artifact.  An enterprising list
participant could try creating an axiom that formalizes the comment.  This
is a nice sort of task that could largely be done one term at a time, as
people have time available.  It would help people get familiar with the
ontology, as well as acting as a debugging exercise.  Trying to create new
more specialized content will likely help to identify gaps or errors in the
upper level.

Any volunteers?

Adam

Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571



*************************************************
COMPANY NOTICE
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and
privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you
are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive information for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies
of this message. If this e-mail contains attachments, you should ensure they are checked for viruses before opening them.
*************************************************
This e-mail originates from LSC GROUP LIMITED. Registered in
England & Wales No 2275471
Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
*************************************************