Sergei Nirenburg
ABSTRACT
Ontological semantics is a theory of meaning in natural language and an approach to natural language processing (NLP) which uses an ontology as the central resource for extracting and representing meaning of natural language texts, reasoning about knowledge derived from texts as well as generating natural language texts based on representations of their meaning. Ontological semantics directly supports such applications as machine translation of natural languages, information extraction, text summarization, question answering, advice giving, collaborative work of networks of human and software agents, etc. Ontological semantics pays serious attention to its theoretical foundations by explicating its premises; therefore, formal ontology and its relations with ontological semantics are important. Besides a general brief discussion of these relations, the paper focuses on the important theoretical and practical issue of the distinction between ontology and natural language. It is argued that this crucial distinction lies not in the (inaccurately) presumed nonambiguity of the one and the well-established ambiguity of the other but rather in the constructed and overtly defined nature of ontological concepts and labels on which no human background knowledge can operate unintentionally to introduce ambiguity, as opposed to pervasive uncontrolled and uncontrollable ambiguity in natural language. The emphasis on this distinction, we argue, will provide better theoretical support for the central tenets of formal ontology by freeing it from the Wittgensteinian and Rortyan retreats from the analytical paradigm; it also reinforces the methodology of NLP by maintaining a productive demarcation between the language-independent nature of ontology and language-specific nature of the lexicons, a demarcation that has paid off well in consecutive implementations of ontological semantics and their applications in practical computer systems.
- Bateman, J. A. 1993. Ontology construction and natural language. In: Nicola Guarino and Roberto Poli (eds.), Knowledge Representation, Ladseb-CNR Internal Report 01/93, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
- Chisholm, R. M. 1996. A Realistic Theory of Categories: An Essay on Ontology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dolgopol'skiy, A. B. 1962. Izuchenie leksiki s tochki zreniya transformatsionnogo analiza plana soderzhaniya yazyka /A study of lexics from the point of view of the transformational analysis of the content plane of language/. In: Leksikograjicheskiy sbornik 5. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
- Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gruber, T. R. 1995. Towardprinciples for the design of ontologies used,for knowledge sharing. In: N. Guarino and R. Poli (eds.), Special Issue on The Role of Formal Ontology in the Information Technology, International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 43: 5-6,907-928 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guarino, N. 1998a. Formal Ontology andlnformation Systems. In: Guarino, 3-15.Google Scholar
- Guarino, N. 1998b. "Some Ontological Principles for Designing Upper Level Lexical Resources." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Lexical Resources and Evaluation, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
- Hirst, G. 199 1. Existence Assumptions in Knowledge Representation. ArtiJicial Intelligence 49, 199-242. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hjelmslev, L. 1958. Dans quelle mesure les significations des mots peuvent-elle etre considerees comme formant une structure? Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 636-654.Google Scholar
- Hovy, E., and S. Nirenburg. 1992. Approximating an Interlingua in a Principled Way. Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Speech and Natural Language, Arden House, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kenny, A. 1989. The Metaphysics of the Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. 1972. General Semantics. In: D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 169-2 18. Reprinted in: Partee, l-50.Google Scholar
- Mahesh, K., S. Nirenburg, J. Cowie, and D. Farwell 1996. An assessment of CYC for natural language processing. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Sciences MCCS-96-296, Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.Google Scholar
- Meinong, A. 1904. ~ber Gegenstandtheorie. In: A. Meinong (ed.), Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie. Leipzig: Bart. Reprinted in his: Gesamtausgabe. Vol. II. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlaganstadt, 1969-78, 481-535. Translated as: The Theory of Objects, in: R. M. Chisholm (ed.), Realism and the Background of Phenomenology, Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960, 76-117.Google Scholar
- Nirenburg, S., and V. Raskin 1996. Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science MCCS-96-304, New Mexico State University: Computing Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
- Nirenburg, S., and V. Raskin 2001. Ontological Semantics. Forthcoming. See prepublication draft at http:Ncrl.nmsu.edulStaff.pages/Technicallsergei~oo~index-book.html.Google Scholar
- Nirenburg, S., V. Raskin, and B. Onyshkevych 1995. Apologiae ontologiae. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science MCCS-95-281. New Mexico State University: Computing Research Laboratory. Reprinted in: Klavans et al., 95-107. Reprinted in a shortened version in: Proceedings of TMI-95, Centre for Computational Linguistics, Catholic Universities Leuven Belgium, 1995, 106-114.Google Scholar
- Nirenburg, S., and Y. Wilks 1997. What :s in a Symbol: Ontology and the Surface of Language u Dialogue. Invited Paper, International Workshop on Linguistic and Ontological Categories, Center for Cognitive and Semiotic Studies, University of San Marino, San Marino, June. Printed as: Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science CS-97-14, Computer Science Department, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Also submitted to Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Ogden, C. K., and 1. A. Richards 1923. Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.Google Scholar
- Parsons, T. 1980. Modifiers and Quantifiers in Natural Language. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 6, Supplement, 29-60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Raskin, V., and S. Nirenburg 1998. An Applied Ontological Semantic Microtheory of Adjective Meaning for Natural Language Processing. Machine Translation 13:2-3, 135-227. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rorty, R. 1967. The Linguistic Turn. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Stem, G. 1931. Meaning and Change of Meaning. G~teborg: G~teborgs H~gskolas Arscrift. Reprinted: Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
- Ullmann, S. 195 1. The Principles of Semantics. Glasgow: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Viegas, E., K. Mahesh, S. Nirenburg, and S. Beale 1999. Semantics in Action. In: P. Saint- Dizier (ed.), Predicative Forms in Natural Language and in Lexical Knowledge Bases. Dordrecht-Boston: Kluwer, 17 1-203.Google Scholar
- Wilks, Y. A. 1972. Grammar, Meaning and the Machine Analysis of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Wilks, Y. A. 1982. Some Thoughts on Procedural Semantics. In: W. G. Lehnert and M. H. Ringle (eds.), Strategies for Natural Language Processing, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 495-5 16.Google Scholar
- Wilks, Y. A. 1992. Form and Content in Semantics. In: Michael Rosner and Roderick Johnson (eds.), Computational Linguistics and Formal Semantics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 257-281.Google Scholar
- Wilks, Y. 1999. The "Fodor"-FODOR Fallacy Bites Back. Technical Report CS-98-13, Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England. Reprinted in: P. Bouillon and F. Busa (eds.), The Language of Word Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
- Wilks, Y., and D. Fass 1992b. Preference Semantics. In: S. C. Shapiro (ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd. ed. New York-Wiley, 1182- 1194.Google Scholar
- Wilks, Y., B. Slator, and L. M. Guthrie 1996. Electric Words: Dictionaries, Computers, and Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Zvegintsev, V. A. 1957. Semasiologiya /Semasiology/. Moscow: Moscow State University Press.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Ontological semantics, formal ontology, and ambiguity
Recommendations
Formal semantics-preserving translation from fuzzy ER model to fuzzy OWL DL ontology
Ontology is an important part of the W3C standards for the Semantic Web, and how to quickly and cheaply construct Web ontologies has become a key technology to enable the Semantic Web. However, information imprecision and uncertainty exist in many real-...
Formal Semantics-Preserving Translation from Fuzzy ER Model to Fuzzy OWL DL Ontology
WI-IAT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 01How to quickly and cheaply construct Web ontologies has become a key technology to enable the Semantic Web. However, information imprecision and uncertainty exist in many real-world applications. Thus constructing fuzzy ontology by extracting domain ...
Formal Semantics and OntologiesTowards an Ontological Account of Formal Semantics
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (FOIS 2008)Formal ontology relies on representation languages for expressing ontologies. This involves the formal semantics of these languages which is typically based on a limited set of abstract mathematical notions. In this paper, we discuss the interplay ...
Comments