[Corpora-List] [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

Wed May 2 02:52:01 UTC 2012

Please add the following comment from the Corpus
Analysis list to the message from the Ontology
Forum still further below and draw the obvious
conclusions:

To evaluate a system for annotating dialogue acts,
you could take a

Discourse Corpus where the text has been manually
annotated with

discourse connectives and relations, apply your
system to the same text,

and compare your system's analysis with the manual
analysis. For example, 

if you work with Arabic, you could try the Arabic
Discourse Corpus 

http://www.arabicdiscourse.net/ built by Leeds PhD
student Amal Alsaif.

One problem you may find is that analyses are only
directly comparable

if you use the same tag-set of discourse
connectives and relations

  - eg for the Arabic Discourse Corpus, see

  http://www.arabicdiscourse.net/connectives/ and

http://www.arabicdiscourse.net/annotation-scheme/

I assume you want to evaluate accuracy; you might
also want to

evaluate ease-of-use, portability, speed etc of
your annotation tool,

and for this you could compare it to other
annotation tools eg

Amal Alsaif's READ tool:
http://www.arabicdiscourse.net/annotation-tool/

I hope this is useful

Eric Atwell, Leeds University 

http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nlp/

This seems to me to be consistent with the
algorithm below that generates the Self Interest
Ontology based on a sample corpus.  Therefore it
should help researchers improve the designation of
self interest in texts for various applications or
further research on dialogues.  

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

  _____  

From: ontolog-forum-bounces at ontolog.cim3.net
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces at ontolog.cim3.net] On
Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 7:32 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

The Wall Street Journal has a column called "the
Law Blog" which could help create ontological
theories about self interest based on observations
in law.  The present issue is about patents, and
the patent changes passed recently into law.  

There are also comments that reflect the self
interest of the participants, which express self
interest on various levels of evaluation, each
subjective in construction.  

Does anyone have suggestions about how to describe
self interest based on this use case?  Any
suggestions or comments would be appreciated.  The
link is at:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/05/01/supreme-court-
loses-favor-with-the-public/tab/comments/#comment-
1214920

The evolution of law, in this example, patent law,
could be traced from the early laws to the
present, and the changes could also be informative
about how law changes reflect the interests of the
individuals. 

The reason I bring this article up is described
below.   

Perhaps a legal ontology could be created from
this information by mining the text from that
unifying point of view - each party chooses
behaviors that reflect their individual self
interest(s).  

Including self interest among the agents should
help explore and eventually explain the way the
data is restructured with English rules and facts,
as well as algebraic and logical constraints.
That also makes it amenable to a discovery
structure And/Or graph.  

The discovery structure And/Or graph provides an
ordering of choices made by an ordering of agents.
The Solution Forest produced by the And/Or search
algorithm is then available to be validated
against a heuristic evaluation function.  Suppose
the evaluation function is chosen from among the
Solutions of the And/Or search algorithm.  

Validating the evidence would then be a process of
choosing the most useful, or least risky, or most
probable, or least fuzzy, or top ROI choice of
solution subtree from the solution forest in the
search.  

If I am not making this clear, think of the
evaluation function in an And/Or search which uses
a comparison between alternative solution subtrees
stored as a forest of trees within the And/Or
graph.  

An evaluation of a filler for a role among
candidate fillers can organize the process by the
preferred choice, so that the choices are ordered
("become primary key indexes" if you prefer
database terminology) and the enumeration of the
valuation or arrival order becomes the primary key
for new columns that can describe the various
properties of the enumerated objects.  Once the
primary key has been constructed, the arrival
order of each choice is already available, and
therefore could provide this key.  

The And/Or graph in this example establishes
meaning from the various indexes, i.e., object
enumerations.  The Self Interest Ontology
generated by this process is represented by the
resulting And/Or graph, the extra columns
associated with objects, relationships, rules and
other representations (TBD) are encoded as nodes
and arcs in the And/Or graph and the associated
And/Or solution subtrees.  

Iterating this algorithmic process will lead the
individual agent to automatically organize a
corpus of documents.  Enumerating the iterations
leads in turn to a recursion of evaluation for
newly discovered columns to reflect objects, such
as choices, or whatever substructures can be found
through the And/Or search forest.  

Thanks for any contributions; I am seeking
comments, critiques or suggestions - pick your
appellation.  

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20120501/259380e8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora