Re: SUO: Multi-Source Ontology (MSO) Draft Ballot Question
John,
Yes, we've related SUMO to WordNet, but they are in separate files, and
clearly separated in the browsers, so I don't see the chance for confusion
as there is for WebKB. If I'm understanding what's in MSO, I don't see how
MSO brings us closer to the SUO goals than SUMO. It leaves out content
that's already in SUMO plus the SUMO-WordNet mappings, adds nothing new,
and has the potential for confusion, by representing SUMO's subclass and
WordNet's hypernym links with the same link in WebKB, even though the
semantics of those links are totally different in the two products.
Adam
At 02:25 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>The distinction you're making is very important:
>
>AP> Another point is that WordNet and SUMO are two very
> > different products that one shouldn't mix together.
> > WordNet synsets are language constructs, not concepts,
> > and the links among synsets are correct linguistically,
> > but not philosophically. SUMO on the other hand is not
> > language dependent, and defines concepts which are valid
> > philosophically, but may not have direct correspondence
> > to any particular lexical item.
>
>But as you know, many people, including the Cyc and SUMO
>developers themselves, have done a lot of work to relate
>their concepts to the WordNet categories. That alignment
>is essential for the simple reason that most of the words
>that we are using in our speech, publications, and emails
>are found in WordNet, but not necessarily in the more
>formally defined concepts of Cyc and WordNet. Somehow,
>we have to relate our English words to our formal
>concepts, and something like WordNet can help us do so.
>
>AP> I fear that putting them in the same representation
> > language could cause considerable confusion.
>
>That fear is well founded. But exactly the same confusion
>is possible when people see the WordNet categories aligned
>to SUMO or Cyc. It is important to note two points:
>
> 1. The alignment is necessary for a great many reasons.
>
> 2. But we have to draw a clear distinction between the
> different kinds of categories.
>
>Where we disagree is over the following point:
>
>AP> WordNet synsets are language constructs, not concepts,
> > and the links among synsets are correct linguistically,
> > but not philosophically.
>
>The major disagreement is over the words "linguistically"
>and "philosophically", which are as vague as the Bible:
>you can always find a quotation from the Bible, some
>philosopher's writings, or some linguist's writings
>to support any claim you want to make.
>
>AP> As an example, take the inference path that is possible
> > from the SUMO term Motion to the WordNet synset "motion,
> > movement, move" then up the hypernym links to "change",
> > "action" and then "act, human action, human activity".
> > Through that faulty inference chain, one could conclude
> > that any Motion is an intentional human action, which
> > of course is false. Hypernym links are linguistically
> > valid, but not logically valid.
>
>I agree with everything but the final sentence: the
>chain of hypernyms you cite are definitely not valid
>linguistically. Chains like that have been criticized
>by many linguists, and they cause exactly the same kinds
>of errors in linguistic analyses that they cause in SUMO.
>
>I also agree with the following point:
>
>AP> WordNet wasn't intended for logical inference, so if
> > you want a product for doing inference, you're better
> > off with a product created for that purpose.
>
>Unfortunately, there is no product for doing inference
>that has a coverage as broad as WordNet. Cyc is coming
>close, but it still isn't close enough. That is why we
>need a project that will start with the resources that
>are currently available, such as OpenCyc, SUMO, WordNet,
>LIS, and others, and develop a new product that corrects
>the faults and extends the good features of all of them.
>
>That is exactly the goal that Philippe is working toward
>with MSO and the supporting tool set of WebKB. The motion
>we are voting on is whether the SUO Working Group should
>accept Philippe's offer to give us MSO as a basis for
>achieving that goal.
>
>So far, nobody else has provided anything else that comes
>as close to meeting the SUO goals as MSO. When I say that,
>I am not belittling the work of the other groups, such as
>SUMO or OpenCyc, because Philippe is accepting them and
>incorporating them into MSO. Furthermore, he is providing
>tools in WebKB for documenting every criticism or correction
>to MSO or any of the ontologies included in it.
>
>John