Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: Re: classification system of the MSO



 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Martin" <phmartin@meganesia.sci.griffith.edu.au>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Cc: <phmartin@meganesia.sci.griffith.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:50 AM
Subject: SUO: classification system of the MSO

Philippe wrote:
> Which author (me or the authors of the integrated ontologies)?
 
Azamat:
Of the integrating as well as the integrated ones
> Which language (English or my favourite notations)?
 
Azamat:
In plain English, like as follows:

Entity, Thing, or Being (the universal class) and Nonbeing, Nonexistence, Nonentity, Nothing (the null class)

The Kinds of Entity: Substance or Object; State or Property and Quality and Quantity; Change, Action or Process; Relation or Relationship.

 

Substance or Object

WordNet: entity (thing; causal agent or cause; substance or matter; object or physical object (whole or unit, natural object living or animate thing (plant, flora; animal, fauna; person, human being); artifact or artifact; part or portion)), group or grouping, psychological feature (cognition, knowledge (mind, head, brain, psyche or nous, content or mental object, lexis, vocabulary, information, place, and public knowledge, history)), abstraction (set);

EuroWordNet: 1st order entity (origin, form, composition, function);

EDR: subject or human (person, animal, body or group, supernatural being), matter (thing or concrete object, objective subject);

SUMO: physical object (self-connected object, collection, agent, region), abstract object (set or class, graph);

CYC: individual (spatial thing), mathematical or computational thing (set or collection), groups, parts of objects, composition of substances, agents, organizations, actors, materials, devices, construction, food, clothing);

DOLCE: aggregate (amount of matter, arbitrary collection), object (physical object, mental object, social object), feature (relevant part, place)}, etc.

 
Asha:

> > Particularly, I wonder how it rearranges and reclassifies the WordNet top
> > level lexical concepts: Entity, Group&Grouping, ...
>
Phillipe:

> The list of the corrections and extensions that I have made to WordNet is
> at
http://www.webkb.org/doc/wn/wnSemanticCorrections.html
> This document explains why the subtype links from the catch-all categories
> Entity and Abstraction to their direct subtypes were cut...

 

Asha:

That must be done, yet the point is how you distributed all their classes, types, and subtypes, considering that WordNet 2.0 has currently the richest and most developed lexical (ontological) content . Here again we return to the key issues central to any unifying scheme purposed to incorporate upper ontologies: What are the primary kinds, classes, categories, or types? What are their number and character (nature)? And what are we to assume as its species, divisions or partitions? 

 

Philippe:

> Except for Entity and Abstraction, a simple way to find the categorization
> of WordNet types is to enter one of their names into the text field in the
> category search tool (
http://www.webkb.org/interface/categSearch.html) or at
> the top of the home page of my work on WordNet:
http://www.webkb.org/doc/wn/

Azamat Abdoullaev

EIS LTD

Moscow, Russia

Pafos, Cyprus

http://www.eis.com.cy