| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Adam Pease wrote
> Rich,
> 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"
Thanks, I'm looking at it now. Presently, I have the WN 1.7 definition
files for the four POS in separate relations, and I see from the paper
that
"As of June 2002, the ontology contains 965 terms and 3742 assertions"
so there must be a number of WN synsets (109,000 in v. 1.7) that don't
have representatives in SUMO at present. Is this a correct deduction,
or has a tremendous amount of growth happened in the last six months?
> >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.
Yes, if Schank's approach of coalescing lots of verbs into a
few more rigidly typed forms is correct, maybe that's what happened
to those other WN verbs.
From "Merged text.txt", I got
(instance agent CaseRole)
(domain agent 1 Process)
(domain agent 2 Agent)
(documentation agent "(&%agent ?PROCESS ?AGENT) means that ?AGENT is
an active determinant, either animate or inanimate, of the &%Process
?PROCESS, with or without voluntary intention. For example, water is
the &%agent of erosion in the following proposition: the water
eroded the coastline. For another example, Eve is an &%agent in the
following proposition: Eve bit an apple.")
which I guess means that agent is a CaseRole with two arguments, but
how Process maps into specific verbs, and when a Process is too complex
to map into just one or two verbs or a phrase, is not clear. Do you
have any material that shows how the WN verbs (and their case roles)
map into SUMO Processes and CaseRoles?
Perhaps I should just be patient and study it longer, but it seems to
me that a detailed relationship between WN's 109,000 senses and class
structures should be very useful for SUMO wrestlers who want to use
both capabilities in one place.
>There are exceptions for
> stative verbs
> which aren't processes, as well as various verbs which have
> very vague
> meanings in English.
Where are these kinds of exceptions documented? Especially
useful would be something machine processable. If the SUMO
Process is much more formally controllable, is there a way to
automate the translation of many WN verb synsets into SUMO
Process specs?
> >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
These are my initial thoughts, but I'll study the material some
more and see if there is some way to get a hold of it.
Thanks yet again,
Rich
> >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