Re: Interoperability and Vagueness
John F. Sowa wrote:
> If the ontology were finite, we'd have a fixed upper
> bound on the number of word senses.
John,
Only if you assume a simple, unitary mapping between word sense
and ontology concept. Exactly my point. If, instead of this unitary
mapping, a lexical semantic representation allowed a
word sense to be represented by an arbitrarily complex combination of
concepts from a finite ontology (perhaps with additional constraints,
attribute values, or other assertions), then there is no fixed upper
bound on word senses or "microsenses". Also, this complex
wordsense-to-conceptual-representation mapping does not need to be
static, but could be modulated by context, as implied by Wittgenstein,
etc.
I'm trying to avoid the need to constantly "generate new types for
your hierarchy" (assuming hierarchy refers to concept hierarchy), which
could cause complications for downstream applications.
-Boyan