RE: SUO: CG representations for WordNet
Rich,
At 02:26 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, Richard Cooper wrote:
>Thanks Adam, I've downloaded ..-Top.txt and am looking at it now.
>In its first line, it mentions "Aligning the SUMO with WordNet"
>(Niles, forthcoming). Has this paper been released yet? It might
>clarify some of the things that look a little strange, such as
>"commutativefunction", which is not in WordNet 1.6 browser's
>repertoire. I would like to understand better how this merger
>fits with the WordNet synsets.
We haven't managed to publish the paper yet, I've just now posted it on the
ontology page and called it a Teknowledge "tech report"
>When I say I'm looking for a CG database, what I emphasize is
>the case relationships required by the verb synsets. From
>Steven Pinker's book, it seems that verb cases offer a good
>handle for parsing English, but I haven't found a machine
>readable source for the case sets.
Verbs are very important. The CaseRole relations in SUMO may be what you
want, combined with the Process types. Most verbs in WordNet have been
mapped to Process types in SUMO. There are exceptions for stative verbs
which aren't processes, as well as various verbs which have very vague
meanings in English.
>SUMO seems to be somewhat more mathematically oriented than
>NLP oriented - or am I musjudging it in that way? Does
>SUMO contain, in an extractable way, the case relationships
>for WordNet verbs?
SUMO is a formal ontology in mathematical logic, but thanks to the WordNet
mappings, we think it can be used for NLP applications. Take a look at the
CaseRole(s) and see what you think. I'd be happy to talk more.
Adam
>Thanks for your help again!
>
>Rich
>
>
>Adam Pease wrote:
> > Richard,
> > Since KIF and CGs are equivalent, our Suggested Upper
> > Merged Ontology
> > (SUMO) could be expressed in CG. We've mapped all 100,000
> > WordNet synsets
> > to SUMO. Both the ontology and the mappings are free. The
> > mappings are
> > released under the GNU license. See our main page at
> > <<http://ontology.teknowledge.com>http://ontology.teknowledge.com> or
> go directly to
> >
> <<http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>.
>
> > The SUMO is
> > listed as "Merge.txt" and the WordNet mappings are in WordNet
> > file format
> > and labeled as WordNetMappings-Top.txt,
> > WordNetMappings-adjectives.txt,
> > WordNetMappings-adverbs.txt and WordNetMappings-verbs.txt
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 10:29 AM 1/14/2003 -0800, Richard Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > From reading "Task-Oriented Semantic Interpretation" at
> > ><<http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/tosi.htm>http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/tosi.h
> tm>http://www.jfsowa.com/pu
>bs/tosi.htm
> >I find that CG types are one-to-one with word senses, and
> >each can have one or more canonical CGs. If word senses
> >(types) are in a generalization lattice, does that mean that
> >every node in the lattice has one or more CGs? How can I
> >get hold of the actual CG structures?
> >
> >Using WordNet, I've been looking at the word senses and
> >template phrases that are defined for each word. Is there
> >a way to translate the WordNet entries into CGs? Or better
> >yet, is there a database of CGs that corresponds to the
> >WordNet entries?
> >
> >Having such a database resource should help NLP developers
> >work with CGs and WordNet at the same time. Maybe this could
> >even be related to the IFF concepts. Of course, the axioms
> >from WordNet would be sparse, but that's another story for
> >a future step.
> >
> >Comments appreciated,
> >
> >Rich