Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Alexandra Arapinis : From ontological structures to semantic lexical structures: the case of institutional entities.

1,339

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,339
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. From ontological structure to semantic lexical structure: the case of institutional entities Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 16/10/2010 Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 1
  • 2. Outline 1 Systematic polysemy and names of institutions : a challenge for lexical resources 2 A (philosophical) incursion into institutional ontology 3 Handling systematic polysemy by interfacing ontologies and lexical resources Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 2
  • 3. Outline 1 Systematic polysemy and names of institutions : a challenge for lexical resources 2 A (philosophical) incursion into institutional ontology 3 Handling systematic polysemy by interfacing ontologies and lexical resources Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 3
  • 4. The polysemic character of institution denoting terms Rephrasing test for polysemy : some semantic data 1. (a) The bank was very nice and understanding [individuals] (b) The bank is right around the corner [building] (c) The bank merged with the American Security Bank [abstract institution] 2. (a) He’s on a trip with his school [individuals] (b) The roof of the school is leaking [building] (c) School was founded by Charles the Great [abstract institution] 3. (a) The church was present at the manifestation [individuals] (b) We go to church every Sunday [building] (c) The Orthodox and Catholic church divided in 1054 [abstract institution] Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 4
  • 5. Standard vs. systematic (regular or logical) polysemy Coordination test - Standard polysemy “Ambiguity tests [. . .] utilise the fact that independent senses of a lexical form are antagonistic to one another ; that is to say, they cannot be brought into play simultaneously without oddness. Contexts which do activate more than one sense at a time give rise to [. . .] zeugma” ([Cruse86] : 61) - Systematic polysemy Though the intersection of the entities denoted by each contextual meaning of the word is empty (physical/individual/ abstract) coordination tests are felicitous Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 5
  • 6. Institution denoting terms and coordination Compare 4. The bank went on strike [employees] in view of its upcoming merger with the American Security Bank [institution] 5. The school called me this morning [employees] to inform me that it will be closed tomorrow [building] 6. The Catholic church, founded in 1054 [institution], is the worlds largest Christian church [members] Vs. 7. ? ? John found the key to the mystery, but it doesn’t fit the lock 8. ? ? The key to success is very heavy Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 6
  • 7. Systematic polysemy in WordNet WordNet’s structure : quick reminder - Structured in synsets (classes of synonyms), commonly taken as equivalent to concepts - Synsets are in turn organized in hierarchies, defined by hypernym or IS-A relationships - At the top level, these hierarchies are organized into base types, 25 primitive groups for nouns, and 15 for verbs Representation of polysemy in WordNet - Polysemy as multiple inheritance or multiple hypernym relations - Contrastive (homonymy) and complementary ambiguity (polysemy) are handled in the same way IS-A overloading problem ([Gangemi et al. 02, 03] [Guarino07]) multiple hypernymy generates - logical incoherences - conceptual confusions Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 7
  • 8. From the lexicon to ontology Requirements for an adequate account of systematic polysemy - Introduction of complex categories of objects ([Pustejovsky95] [Asher10] “dot-types”) : ’semantic facets’ linked through non-hierarchical relations - Definition of orthogonal connections between categories and mechanisms of inheritance through such orthogonal relations Working hypothesis - Institutional as stratified entities (grounded in the material realm and on intentional agents involved in social interaction) - The systematic polysemy as semantic upraisal of the complex ontological structure of denoted entities → Understanding the patterns of systematic polysemy involving names of institutions requires understanding the patterns of ontological constitution of institutional entities Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 8
  • 9. Outline 1 Systematic polysemy and names of institutions : a challenge for lexical resources 2 A (philosophical) incursion into institutional ontology 3 Handling systematic polysemy by interfacing ontologies and lexical resources Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 9
  • 10. Descriptive common sense (social) ontology A common semantic assumption in NLP - Lexical semantic as the reflection of common sense categorization of the world Metaphysics of the “common sense world” - Objects surrounding us in our everyday environment and activities - E.g. trees, rocks, rivers, but also chairs, tables, houses, banks, universities, etc. General ontological assumptions - Non-relativistic approach : there is an objective core structure of the common sense world as it is delivered trough different cultures - Non-reductionist approach : “ordinary objects” have proper identity and persistence conditions, viz. do not reduce to the ontological building blocks studied in foundational ontology (material, intentional, abstract) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 10
  • 11. Philosophical background The phenomenological tradition - Husserl : study of the “lifeworld” or “personal world” as a proper ontological layer structured by multiple dependence relations on “lower” layers - G¨otingen circle (Ingarden, Reinach) : ontological foundations of the literary work, positive law, etc. Recent advances at the joint between phenomenological and analytic tradition - Common sense metaphysics, developments and integration in contemporary analytical debates : B. Smith, A.L. Thomasson - Development of a formal theory of dependence, taken as the fundamental ontological relation structuring reality : K. Fine, J. Lowe, P. Simons The analytic tradition - Searle’s social ontology grounded in his theory of intentionality (with divergences but also overlaps with the phenomenological approach) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 11
  • 12. Institutions as “stratified” intentional products Products of social acts (or collective intentionality) [Reinach, Searle] - A social act (e.g. promises, commands, etc.) is such that it necessarily involves : being produced in the direction of others, thus being externalized, and being grasped as such by others → Collective intentionality - Social acts are productive, viz. something new comes into being : very roughly, new connections between agents hence bound into social-institutional groups “Stratified” or “many-layered” entities [Ingarden] - “Organic structures” or “formations” depend upon “heterogeneous” ontological strata for their existence and identity (material, ideal, intentional) - As such, these entities cannot be classified in either of the major categories of objects accepted by traditional metaphysics, though they are grounded on them Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 12
  • 13. The (quasi) abstract component of institutions Deontic powers - Drawing on the example of promises : paradigmatic pre-legal social acts - Social acts produce claims and obligations regulating actions Institutional roles - Deontic powers are tied to institutional roles (e.g. president, employee), viz. place-holders for patterns of actions - RLs are defined by (i) constitutive norms, determining the conditions under which an entity can qualify for role ; (ii) deontic norms, regulating the actions of players of a given role Abstract artifacts - Roles and deontic powers are not irreducible to intentional states nor material entities. - (i) They are abstract in that they lack spatial location ; (ii) they are artifactual in being man-created, temporally located Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 13
  • 14. The agentive component of institutions Constant dependence on agents - Deontic powers, like claims and obligations, can only exist insofar as there are people tied by them - The dependence of such powers on agents consists in the fact that they cannot endure unless relevant bearers exist Generic dependence on agents - Institutional deontic powers do not tie specific individuals : they can be passed on from a bearer to another (e.g. replacement of the members of an organization) - The perdurance of an institution only requires the existence of some individuals qualifying of the relevant institutional roles, viz. the existence of some bearer of the relevant deontic powers Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 14
  • 15. The material component of institutions Material objects invested with institutional status (role) The institutional status of material objects is derivative upon the actions of agents within the institution (i) Institutions determine patterns of actions for the agents playing different institutional roles (ii) These patterns (correlatively roles) include actions in relation to a material object Two cases : 1. Determining the conditions under which a person is tied to “temporary institutional roles” may involve relational conditions to a material entity A building housing an institutional activity (bank, university). Determines patterns of actions associated for people while present in the building. 2. Institutional roles may involve regulated actions bearing on a material entity French national territory. The rights and duties of French citizens regulate ex. there movement on the French territory. Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 15
  • 16. Outline 1 Systematic polysemy and names of institutions : a challenge for lexical resources 2 A (philosophical) incursion into institutional ontology 3 Handling systematic polysemy by interfacing ontologies and lexical resources Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 16
  • 17. Ontology-driven revision of lexical resources General strategy - Formalizing the fundamental categories and relations structuring institutional entities in a top-level ontology - Formulating principles of orthogonal quality-inheritance, in particular quality-inheritance through dependence - Aligning the top level of lexical resource with top-level ontology Framework : DOLCE foundational ontology [Masolo et al.03] - Alignment of WordNet’s upper level and DOLCE foundational ontology has been successfully achieved [Oltramary et al. 2002] [Gangemi et al. 03] - A preliminary characterization of social roles [Masolo et al. 04] and organizations [Bottazi&Ferrario 09] has been proposed in DOLCE Aim : Show how orthogonal inheritance involved in institutional entities can be formally characterized by focussing on the case of organizations and bringing minimal extensions to existing results. Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 17
  • 18. DOLCE basic categories - ED(x) :“x is an endurant”, i.e. an entity that is wholly present at any time it is present - PD(x) : “x is a perdurant”, i.e. an entity that extends through time, has temporal parts, and is only partially present at any given time - APO(x) : “x is an agentive physical object”, i.e. an endurant that has intentionality - NAPO(x) : “x is an non-agentive physical object”, i.e. an endurant that has no intentionality - SOB(x) : “x is a social object”, i.e. an endurant that (i) is not a physical object ; (ii) depends on a community of intentional agents - PC(x, y, t) : the endurant x participates in the perdurant y at time t, i.e. endurants “involved” in an occurrence, typically an event Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 18
  • 19. Extension to social individuals Social individuals (SI(x)) (e.g. the bank of France, the Peugeot company) as social objects which can be described and defined using a number of social concepts. [Gangemi&Mika03] : Reifying concepts and descriptions to be able to predicate on them : CN(x) : “x is a social concept” DS(x) : “x is a description” DF(x, y) : “x is defined by the description y” US(x, y) : “x is (re)used in the description y” CF(x, y, t) : “at time t, x is classified by the concept y” [Bottazi&Ferrario09] : Modifying the argument restrictions for DF and US so that they can apply to social individuals (A1) US(x, y) → ((CN(x) ∨ SI(x)) ∧ DS(y)) (A2) DF(x, y) → US(x, y) (A3) (CN(x) ∨ SI(x) → ∃y (DF(x, y)) (T1) DF(x, y) → ((CN(x) ∨ SI(x)) ∧ DS(y)) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 19
  • 20. Some basic relations Following [Bottazi&Ferrario09] : Organizations, like any social object, are created by collective intentionality, viz. involve a social event (SEV(x)) This event links institutions and their defining descriptions through social commitment, which “turns the description into a prescription for agents”. This dimension is captured through the primitive validity relation (VAL(x, y)) (A4) VAL(x, y) → SI(y) ∧ DF(y, x) ∧ ∃z, t (SEV (z) ∧ PC(x, z, t) ∧ PC(y, z, t) New concepts and roles are created that have a meaning and a “legal status” inside the organization. These institutionalized (INST(x, y)) concepts and roles are introduced through valid descriptions (D1) INST(x, y) =df CN(x) ∧ SI(y) ∧ ∃z (VAL(z, y) ∧ US(x, z)) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 20
  • 21. Social roles Based on the notion of social role (RL(x)), we distinguish agentive and non-agentive roles, depending on the kind of entity classified by a role (CF(x, y, t) [Masolo et al 04]). Agentive roles regulate the behavior that agents must observe when they play definite roles.“x is an agentive role in y” (ARL(x, y)) is defined by (D2) ARL(x, y) =df RL(x) ∧ INST(x, y) ∧ ∀z, t (CF(z, x, t) → APO(z)) Non-agentive roles (NARL(x, y)) regulate actions of agents involving the object invested with the given role. They are institutionalized insofar as they are ’definitional’ of the agentive roles. The requirement relation (RQ(x, y) :“x requires y”) captures this ’definitional’ connection through : (A5) (RQ(x, y) ∧ DF(x, d)) → US(y, d) (D3) NARL(x, y) =df RL(x) ∧ ∀z, t (CF(z, x, t) → NAPO(z))∧ ∀v (ARL(v, y) → RQ(v, x)) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 21
  • 22. Partial characterization of organizations Relations connecting agents and non-agentive physical objects to social individuals (drawing on and extending [Bottazi&Ferrario09]) : “x is affiliated to y at time t” (A6) AFF(x, y, t) → ∃z ARL(z, y) ∧ CF(x, z, t) “x counts as y at time t” (following Searle) (A7) CNT(x, y, t) → ∃z NARL(z, y) ∧ CF(x, z, t) Necessary conditions for a social individual to be an organization, using the relation of being present a time t (PRE(x, t)) “x is an organization” (A8) ORG(x) → ∃t (PRE(x, t) ∧ ∀t (PRE(x, t ) → ∃y AFF(y, x, t )) “x is a materially grounded organisation” (D4) MORG(x) =df ORG(x) ∧ ∀t (PRE(x, t) → ∃y CNT(y, x, t)) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 22
  • 23. Organizations and dependence The dependences structuring organizations : One important axiom of the CF relation : (A9) CF(x, y, t) → PRE(x, t) From the definition of Generic Constant Dependence (GD(φ, ψ)) (D5) GD(φ, ψ) =df (∀x(φ(x) → ∃t(PRE(x, t))∧ ∀x, t((φ(x) ∧ PRE(x, t)) → ∃y(ψ(y) ∧ PRE(x, t))) and (A9) the following theorems can be prouved : (T2) GD(ORG, AFF) (T3) GD(MORG, AFF) (T4) GD(MORG, CNT) [(T) SD(ORG, DS)] Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 23
  • 24. Indirect quality-inheritance Kinds of qualities - TQ(x) : “x is a temporal quality” - SQ(x) : “x is a spatial quality ” - AQ(x) : “x is an abstract quality” - To which we add AGQ(x) : “x is an agentive quality” Extending argument restrictions (where qt(x, y) is read “x is a quality of y” and Kx stands for “the kind of x”) (A10) qt(x, y) ↔ (TQ(x) → D(Ky , PD)) (A11) qt(x, y) ↔ (SQ(x) → D(Ky , ED)) (A12) qt(x, y) ↔ (AQ(x) → D(Ky , NPED)) (A13) qt(x, y) ↔ (AGQ(x) → D(Ky , APO)) Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 24
  • 25. Remarks on indirect inheritance Note that : (A10- A12) cover the original argument constraints on qualities from DOLCE : (i) a PD(resp. ED, NPED, APO) is constantly dependent on itself, (ii) a TQ (resp. SQ, AQ, AGQ) is constantly dependent on PD (resp. ED, NPED, APO) Indirect inheritance extends beyond the category of social individuals to all cases of constant dependence Axioms stipulating that a PD indirectly inherits SQ from its participants, and that a PED indirectly inherits TQ from the event it participates to follow as theorems Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 25
  • 26. Perspectives Concerning institutional ontology - Further exploit philosophical literature in the ontology of institutional entities and in particular its recent developments (e.g. legal, geographic) - Pursue the formal characterization of social individuals and relations Concerning the ontology/lexical resource interface - Extending and testing the hypothesis of a correlation between systematic polysemy and ontological dependence - Use systematic polysemy detection in WordNet (viz. multiple hypernym detection) as a tool to reveal underlying ontological dependences - Draw general patterns of dependence and integrate them in foundational ontologies like DOLCE Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 26
  • 27. . Thank you ! Alexandra Arapinis (Paris 1 - IHPST) PHILOWEB 2010 27

×