Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

ApresentaçãO E U R A L E X

319 views

Published on

Keynote of my presentation at EURALEX.
Share alike.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ApresentaçãO E U R A L E X

  1. 1. Onomasiological dictionaries and ontologies Patrícia Cunha França EURALEX, Leeuwerden, July 8, 2010
  2. 2. Summary • Introduction • Defining concepts: from onomasiology to ontology • On the differences between dictionaries and ontologies • Similarities between dictionaries and ontologies • Concluding remarks • References
  3. 3. Introduction • “Among the wide Spectrum of information representation and retrieval tools are thesaurus and ontologies, which are the most often linked in bibliography, even though they come from very different disciplinary areas.” (Arano, 2005)
  4. 4. Defining concepts • Onomasiology: field, • Onomasiological within Lexicology, that dictionaries: aims “to find the linguistic • ideological dictionary; forms, or the words, that • analogic dictionary; can stand for a given • pictorial dictionary; concept/idea/ • synonym dictionary; object” (Grzega & • conceptual dictionary; Schöner, 2007: 7) • semantic dictionary; • thesaurus. • Onomasiological dictionary: words are grouped by semantic fields; an entry represents a concept.
  5. 5. • Ontology: multidisciplinary field concerned with the representation of entities that make up the world. • ontologies: representational artifacts that present some kind of relations between concepts. • formal ontology: representational artifact that uses a high degree of formalism to represent entities (OBO Foundry, ontologies built with Protégé). • linguistic ontology: specific kind of ontology that focus on lexical items and presents some kind of linguistic information (WordNet). • conceptualization: the theoretical level of the building process of constructing an ontology.
  6. 6. • Ontology: multidisciplinary field concerned with the representation of entities that make up the world. • ontologies: representational artifacts that present some kind of relations between concepts. • formal ontology: representational artifact that uses a high degree of formalism to represent entities (OBO Foundry, ontologies built with Protégé). • linguistic ontology: specific kind of ontology that focus on lexical items and presents some kind of linguistic information (WordNet). • conceptualization: the theoretical level of the building process of constructing an ontology.
  7. 7. • Ontology: multidisciplinary field concerned with the representation of entities that make up the world. • ontologies: representational artifacts that present some kind of relations between concepts. • formal ontology: representational artifact that uses a high degree of formalism to represent entities (OBO Foundry, ontologies built with Protégé). • linguistic ontology: specific kind of ontology that focus on lexical items and presents some kind of linguistic information (WordNet). • conceptualization: the theoretical level of the building process of constructing an ontology. In Ray apud Nickles et al., 2007: 42
  8. 8. (concertos, entrevistas) e ainda uma parte dedicada aos entusiastas –ilustração que se segue temos a mesma ontologia representada em OWL, i. Na ADMIRADOR. atr!<&$).;NAME+,* está assente num formato XML61. De notar que este tipo de representação é, na prátic Entre estes conceitos estão representadas várias relações (toca, grava, toca em, Neste modelo também é possível verificar a cardinalidade de todos aos conceitos, gerada automaticamente e informação é geralmente inserida através de um edit participa). gráfico62. Por exemplo, no Protegé, uma das ferramentas usadas para editar ontologia que é dada pelas restrições nas relações entre conceitos. Estas restrições em UML são é apresentada automaticamente um editor XML ao mesmo tempo que é apresentado chamadas multiplicities. Estas multiplicities estão especificadas na forma ;min..max+ e editor gráfico. estão colocadas no final da linha que representa a relação entre conceitos. Por exemplo, ;@**"+."1.%(615/).;PLAYS+.("$%(.1.361##(.;MUSICIAN+.(.1.361##(.;INSTRUMENT+.#!>"!4!31. 9&(. &'. '('<%). 81. 361##(. ;MUSICIAN+. 2)8(. $)31%. ("$%(. "("A&'. 1. &'. "B'ero não 8($(%'!"18). 8(. !"#$%&'("$)#-. ('. 9&(. ;n+-. $16. 3)'). "1. C1$('D$!31-. #!>"!4!31. &'. conjunto de números xemplo de ontologia sobre músicos visualizada como uma rede semântica. Ilustração V I I I – E naturais. ( in GA!EVI", DJURI" E DEVED#I", 2006: 49) Como bem referem Ga!evi", Djuri" e Deved#i" (2006: 49) a ontologia da ilustração acima, expressa em linguagem natural (e.g.: ‘Um músico toca um 58 Aqui entende-se conceptualização como sinónimo de teoria lógica, entendida como um conjunto de axiomas e regras de inferência que visam representar formalmente o raciocínio válido. Ilustração X - A ontologia sobre músicos representada em O W L ( in GA!EVI", DJURI" E DEVED#I", 2006: 50) 49-50 Gaševic, Djuric and Devedžic, 2006: 63 3.2.1.4. Vocabulário usado por uma teoria lógica No que respeita à definição 6, uma ontologia é vista não como uma teoria lógi mas simplesmente como o vocabulário usado por essa teoria. O vocabulário de um teoria lógica pode conter símbolos lógicos (por exemplo , , !, />, #, {}, ") Ilustração I X - Modelo U M L da ontologia sobre músicos (letras minúsculas e letras maiúsculas). símbolos não-lógicos ( in !"#$%&'()*+,-&')$)*$%$*.&', 2006: 50). 61 A XML (eXtended Markup Language) é uma linguagem recomendada pela W3C. É uma linguagem
  9. 9. Na ilustração que se segue temos a mesma ontologia representada em OWL, i. atr!<&$).;NAME+,* está assente num formato XML61. De notar que este tipo de representação é, na prátic Neste modelo também é possível verificar a cardinalidade de todos aos conceitos, gerada automaticamente e informação é geralmente inserida através de um edit gráfico62. Por exemplo, no Protegé, uma das ferramentas usadas para editar ontologia que é dada pelas restrições nas relações entre conceitos. Estas restrições em UML são é apresentada automaticamente um editor XML ao mesmo tempo que é apresentado chamadas multiplicities. Estas multiplicities estão especificadas na forma ;min..max+ e editor gráfico. estão colocadas no final da linha que representa a relação entre conceitos. Por exemplo, ;@**"+."1.%(615/).;PLAYS+.("$%(.1.361##(.;MUSICIAN+.(.1.361##(.;INSTRUMENT+.#!>"!4!31. 9&(. &'. '('<%). 81. 361##(. ;MUSICIAN+. 2)8(. $)31%. ("$%(. "("A&'. 1. &'. "B'ero não 8($(%'!"18). 8(. !"#$%&'("$)#-. ('. 9&(. ;n+-. $16. 3)'). "1. C1$('D$!31-. #!>"!4!31. &'. conjunto de números naturais. Ilustração X - A ontologia sobre músicos representada em O W L ( in GA!EVI", DJURI" E DEVED#I", 2006: 50) 49-50 Gaševic, Djuric and Devedžic, 2006: 3.2.1.4. Vocabulário usado por uma teoria lógica No que respeita à definição 6, uma ontologia é vista não como uma teoria lógi mas simplesmente como o vocabulário usado por essa teoria. O vocabulário de um teoria lógica pode conter símbolos lógicos (por exemplo , , !, />, #, {}, ") Ilustração I X - Modelo U M L da ontologia sobre músicos (letras minúsculas e letras maiúsculas). símbolos não-lógicos ( in !"#$%&'()*+,-&')$)*$%$*.&', 2006: 50). 61 A XML (eXtended Markup Language) é uma linguagem recomendada pela W3C. É uma linguagem
  10. 10. Na ilustração que se segue temos a mesma ontologia representada em OWL, i. está assente num formato XML61. De notar que este tipo de representação é, na prátic gerada automaticamente e a informação é geralmente inserida através de um edit gráfico62. Por exemplo, no Protegé, uma das ferramentas usadas para editar ontologia é apresentada automaticamente um editor XML ao mesmo tempo que é apresentado editor gráfico. Ilustração X - A ontologia sobre músicos representada em O W L ( in GA!EVI", DJURI" E DEVED#I", 2006: 50) 49-50 Gaševic, Djuric and Devedžic, 2006: 3.2.1.4. Vocabulário usado por uma teoria lógica No que respeita à definição 6, uma ontologia é vista não como uma teoria lógi mas simplesmente como o vocabulário usado por essa teoria. O vocabulário de um teoria lógica pode conter símbolos lógicos (por exemplo , , !, />, #, {}, ") símbolos não-lógicos (letras minúsculas e letras maiúsculas). 61 A XML (eXtended Markup Language) é uma linguagem recomendada pela W3C. É uma linguagem
  11. 11. Gaševic, Djuric and Devedžic, 2006: 49-50
  12. 12. On the differences • “A dictionary does not employ a formal language, but rather an informal one: a human natural language. A dictionary is meant to be read and interpreted by humans.” • “A dictionary is descriptive. [...] In contrast, a formal ontology is prescriptive or normative.” • “A term in an ontology is not a word but a concept.” • “Language, as an organic system, does not conform to ontological principles.” Nickles et al, 2007: 43-45
  13. 13. Dictionaries Ontologies natural language formal language normative and descriptive prescriptive words/linguistic signs concepts/strings semantic and lexical ontological relations relations (real world)
  14. 14. On the similarities
  15. 15. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43)
  16. 16. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43) • Prescriptive/descriptive. There is some prescriptive character in a dictionary. In theory, a dictionary describes the language used by speakers at a specific time and place, but what can be said to the words of Green, referring to Johnson and Webster: “What both men were doing, although neither articulated as such, was playing God”. (Green, 1996: 5)
  17. 17. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43) • Prescriptive/descriptive. There is some prescriptive character in a dictionary. In theory, a dictionary describes the language used by speakers at a specific time and place, but what can be said to the words of Green, referring to Johnson and Webster: “What both men were doing, although neither articulated as such, was playing God”. (Green, 1996: 5)
  18. 18. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43) • Prescriptive/descriptive. There is some prescriptive character in a dictionary. In theory, a dictionary describes the language used by speakers at a specific time and place, but what can be said to the words of Green, referring to Johnson and Webster: “What both men were doing, although neither articulated as such, was playing God”. (Green, 1996: 5) http://www.jessesword.com/dictionary-guardian.gif
  19. 19. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43) • Prescriptive/descriptive. There is some prescriptive character in a dictionary. In theory, a dictionary describes the language used by speakers at a specific time and place, but what can be said to the words of Green, referring to Johnson and Webster: “What both men were doing, although neither articulated as such, was playing God”. (Green, 1996: 5)
  20. 20. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43) • Prescriptive/descriptive. There is some prescriptive character in a dictionary. In theory, a dictionary describes the language used by speakers at a specific time and place, but what can be said to the words of Green, referring to Johnson and Webster: “What both men were doing, although neither articulated as such, was playing God”. (Green, 1996: 5)
  21. 21. On the similarities • Language. Both ontologies and dictionaries are made to be read by human beings. As Lacy states, “developers of Owl wanted to make the language intuitive for humans and to have sufficient power to describe machine-readable content”. (Lacy, 2005: 43) • Prescriptive/descriptive. There is some prescriptive character in a dictionary. In theory, a dictionary describes the language used by speakers at a specific time and place, but what can be said to the words of Green, referring to Johnson and Webster: “What both men were doing, although neither articulated as such, was playing God”. (Green, 1996: 5) • Concepts/words. Onomasiological dictionaries focus on concepts and not on words. In the same way, ontologies are not only about concepts, but also words (e.g..: linguistic ontologies). As Nickles et al. state, one of the challenges we are facing today in studying language and ontologies is establishing a relation between formal ontologies and linguistic expressions (Nickles et al, 2007: 44).
  22. 22. • “All ontologies in information science contain terms. (...) the experts in the various specialized domains of knowledge generally look through the terms. However, an ontology such as WordNet presents a special case, for (if it is to be called an ontology at all) it is an ontology of terms and meaning; it is like a dictionary, not like a taxonomical textbook (...). It is clear that the term ‘cat’ is mentioned and not used in WordNet. Both the scare quotes around the term ‘cat’ and the fact that it is preceded by the term ‘noun’ makes it clear that WordNet contains no talk of real cats” (Johansson, 2008: 303). • What kind of information is being provided with the expression “usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar” (WordNet).
  23. 23. Concluding remarks • As many researchers (e.g.: B. Smith, N. Guarino, P. Giaretta and others) have verified, the terms and concepts needed to the work of an ontologist are not clearly defined in recent research. Terms such as “concept”, “word”, “term”, “class”, “category”, “universal”, need to be clearly defined. • Several important theoretical questions are still unsolved. Some of the questions that still need study are, for instance, the clarification of what are the building blocks of an ontology as an artifact and the difference between conceptual, lexical and ontological relations. • A terminological work in the area is urgent. This work must involve a large interdisciplinary collaboration. The importance of Applied Linguistic and Lexicography for the study of ontology is clear. • “Ontology is a burgeoning field, involving researchers from the computer science, philosophy, data and software engineering, logic, linguistics, and terminology domains.” (Smith, 2006)
  24. 24. References • Arano, S. (2005). Thesaurus and ontologies. [on-line publication]. URL: http:// www.hipertext.net/english/pag1009.html [Access date: 17 September 2009]. • Grzega, J.; Schöner, M. (2007). English and General Historical Lexicology. [on-line publication]. URL: http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/OnOnMon1.pdf [Access date: 31 October 2009]. • Nickles et al. (2007). “Ontologies across disciplines”. In Shalley, A. & D. Zaefferer (eds.). Ontolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 23-70. • Gaševic, D. D. Djuric & V. Devedžic (2006) Model driven architecture and ontology development. Berlin: Springer. • Lacy, L. (2005). Owl: Representing Information Using the Web Ontology Language. Victoria: Trafford. • Green, J. (1996). Chasing the Sun: dictionary and the dictionaries they made. New York: Hanry Holt and Company, Inc. • Johansson, I. (2008). “Bioinformatics and Biological Reality”. In Munn and Smith (eds.). (2008). • Munn, K.; B. Smith (eds.) (2008). Applied Ontology. Frankfurt: Ontos/Verlag. • Smith, B. (2006) “Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain”. [on-line publication]. URL: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/ Terminology_for_Ontologies.pdf [Access date: 17 September 2009].
  25. 25. patriciacunhafranca@gmail.com

×