RE: pun in ontolingua KBTim Lethbridge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Tim Lethbridge <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: pun in ontolingua KB
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 16:40:42 EDT
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Doug@SURYA.CYC-WEST.MCC.COM,
In-reply-to: <XLView.772225353.7590.gruber@hpp-ssc-1>; from "Tom Gruber" at Jun 21, 94 11:38 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
> At 8:26 AM 6/21/94 -0500, Benjamin J. Kuipers wrote:
> >Doug [Lenat] is right. This is a (the?) critical issue in knowledge-sharing.
I agree wholehaeartedly. Dealing with this issue was one of the major themes
of my recently-submitted PhD thesis.
The approach I developed in CODE4 can be summarised as follows:
* Have separate concepts (frames, units etc.) for 1) things (length, car, etc.) and
2) for the *terms* that are used in natural language when manipulating these
concepts. A term can map to several user concepts, and several user concepts
can be represented by several terms.
* When users are specifying knowledge they can either: 1) make *direct* links between
concepts, or 2) specify a term and have the system point out
when the term is ambiguous.
I prefer this scheme to relying on 'context' for several reasons:
1. Forcing a unique namespace even within a context is too restrictive. For
example, the knowledge enterer may very well want to have two concepts
represented by the term 'length' within a very narrow context.
2. Contexts overlap. It can be hard to remember which context is active
and it can be complicated to constantly specify context in
an interdisciplinary knowledge base.
Timothy C. Lethbridge email@example.com
H(voice/fax): 237-6642 firstname.lastname@example.org
W: (613) 564-8155 FAX: (613) 564-9486
Department of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
150 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, Canada K1N 6N5