[Corpora-List] WordNet vs Ontology

[Rich Cooper]

Dear John,

 

You wrote:

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

 

Yes, I agree; the system has to build up knowledge
by interacting with its user(s), including
knowledge about words and word usage.  But that
isn't Lenat's only miss.  From his thesis on, he
has been writing about discovery systems, not
about systems that learn from empirical evidence.
And of course there are those who think that
embodied systems are needed before they can learn
like people do.  

 

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: corpora-bounces at uib.no
[mailto:corpora-bounces at uib.no] On Behalf Of John
F Sowa
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:11 PM
To: corpora at uib.no
Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] WordNet vs Ontology

 

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>
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>
http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora

Corpora mailing list

 <mailto:Corpora at uib.no> Corpora at uib.no

 <http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora>
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20140808/44554f58/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