[topicmapmail] Conceptual Graphs are step 6

[Murray Altheim]

Dan Corwin wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
[...]
>>>I feel [1] is a decent spec on most of the role types [CG's] require,
>>>and is certainly ample for an informal debate on this thread about
>>>what future changes or extensions (if any) we'd like to make to it.
>>
>>Are you talking about specifically Figure 3, "Thematic roles as subtypes
>>the four types of participants", that kind of thing?
>
> Yep.  Under ontology A, we can model the same case role types,
> changing only the ways constraints get expressed for each of
> 
>    the (19) thematic (case) role types of CGs, defined at [1] and [2]
> 
> This role ontology forms the bulk of "Conceptual Graphs".  WORDS just
> wraps its own PSIs around these public definitions, so as to "snapshot"
> today's published version of those concepts. [...]

Okay, I'm following you just fine so far, but I've either not seen
or somehow lost the reference to "Ontology A".

> Then it adds ..
> 
>    the (27) constraint types and values at [4], standing in for TMCL
>    the (50) part-of-speech types at [4] for case-role constraints to cite
> 
> The rest of ontology A covers TM constraints in general under the
> WORDS paradigm.  This is bigger in scope than CGs, but WORDS can
> readily absorb the CG constraints - mostly just a domain - with no
> change in meaning.
> 
> And [4] lets *your* ontology types be cited as constraints, whereas
> under [1] they can must be John Sowa's.  This seems a needed upgrade.
> 
>>>[3] http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet/  (browse its examples)

Again, understood.

> Patterns under ontology B effectively define verb types, which help
> a WORDS script expand like a templates into an instance of CLAUSE.
> But nobody can yet make *any* such verb lexicon a standard, nor
> can CGs - as that is just too big a job.  In practice, many people
> will do in many small steps of only a few verbs at a time.

It seems like the KR community has been tackling this piecemeal,
with various predicates gradually making their way into the lexicon.
But as you say, it is too big a job, and I've unsurprisingly found
at least as much infighting amongst those creating those predicates
as I've found agreement, for example, Pat Hayes doesn't think much
of Barry Smith's theories of mereotopology, etc. This kind of thing
seems only natural in distributed domains and communities.

>>I must admit (somewhat sheepishly) that in looking down the list of
>>people on the FrameNet site, I'm hardly familiar with any of them.
> 
> My guess is they are mostly local grad students, looking to pick
> up some extra cash and/or glory as computational lexicographers.

You're just trying to cheer me up. :-)

> BTW, another NLP group doing similar work is PropBank.  I suspect
> it is staffed the same way, but this link may give details:
> 
>    http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~ace/ace_feb02_files/v3_document.htm
> 
> Teams like Framenet and PropBank work slowly.  Lexicography is
> painstaking, so just be patient.  They do build quality models.

Woof. Oh, to have a team of skilled programmers...

>>Any pointers on what are the best papers, best summaries, etc.? If
>>we're going to work on this together I'd like to get up to speed on
>>some of the same things as you've looked into.
> 
> Google on James Allen, who literally wrote the (text)book on NLP.
> Or just find it in your local library.  Focus on semantic processing
> areas (versus syntax), and be aware that Allen is well known for his
> definitive ontologies of tense and speaker-relative time.

This might come in quite handy in my own work. Thanks!

>>>[4]  http://www.lexikos.com/psi/words/
>>
>>This looks suspiciously similar to the ontology I've been building
>>in Ceryle... some of the Things certainly are identity matches (at
>>least at first glance).
> 
> Great minds do think alike :-)  But here, please glance again.
> 
> Technically, I'm modeling "part-of-speech" (POS) for word-meaning
> topics viewed as data structures, NOT the type of their subject.

Yes, I understood the distinction, which is why the similarity was
a bit striking. Part of my difficulties (in design and implementa-
tion) have been in this confusion between language and logic, with
my attempt to describe it previously as an "informal" ontology,
where it was really just a linguistically-based (framelike) ontology.
As Jack mentioned, Cyc started as frames and then got religion. I
have been heavily influenced by Cyc, but my first encounter with it
was after it already included all manner of kitchen sink, hence my
confusion. I'm just now trying to pry it all apart with a spanner.

> Philosophically, this is very slippery turf, but I do it so that
> the WORDS type hierarchy can stay almost 100% independent of its
> client's, and well hidden within obscure "POS" occurrences.

Yes.

>>I'm going to have a wiki up in a week or two (I hope), and perhaps
>>we can devote some space there to discussing this, such that the
>>results of our discussions gradually build up some documentation.
> 
> Timing wise, that is fine.  Meanwhile, I'm traveling so much of late
> I barely have time to read email, much less answer it.
> 
> So please forgive response delays; I have another trip tomorrow.

No problems with time -- I expect any cooperative efforts will take
time.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

   The Resume of George W. Bush
   http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

                    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters -- Goya