[Corpora-List] WordNet vs Ontology

[John F Sowa]

On 8/7/2014 10:57 PM, Ken Litkowski wrote:
> It would seem to me that our goal should be a classification
> of all existing things (not to exclude the narrower types).

Yes, but note the slides I suggested in my first note:

    http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/kdptut.pdf

Slides 7 to 9:  Cyc project.  30 years of work (since 1984).
After the first 25 years, 100 million dollars and 1000 person-years
of work (one person-millennium!), 600,000 concepts, defined by
5,000,000 axioms, organized in 6,000 microtheories -- and counting.

Slide 10:  2300 years of universal ontology schemes -- and counting.

> The Brandeis Shallow Ontology attempts to do this, and incidentally
> is being used to characterize arguments of verbs in Patrick Hanks
> corpus pattern analysis, i.e., in the imperfect world of language.

I strongly believe in shallow, underspecified ontologies -- especially
when they're supplemented with lots of lexical information about verbs
and their characteristic patterns.

But I also believe that the key to having an open-ended variety of
specialized ontologies is to make the computers do what people do:
extend their ontologies automatically by reading books.

Lenat made the mistake of assuming that you need to hand-code
a huge amount of knowledge before a system can start to read
by itself.  But that's wrong.  You need to design a system that
can automatically augment its ontology every step of the way.

John

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora