By Sergei Nirenburg
In Ontological Semantics, Sergei Nirenburg and Victor Raskin introduce a accomplished method of the therapy of textual content that means through computing device. Arguing that with the ability to use which means is important to the luck of ordinary language processing (NLP) functions, they go away from the advert hoc method of that means taken by means of a lot of the NLP neighborhood and suggest theory-based semantic equipment. Ontological semantics, an built-in advanced of theories, methodologies, descriptions, and implementations, makes an attempt to systematize principles approximately either semantic description as illustration and manipulation of which means by means of computing device courses. it really is equipped on already coordinated "microtheories" protecting such diversified components as particular language phenomena, processing heuristics, and implementation approach structure instead of on remoted parts requiring destiny integration. Ontological semantics is consistently evolving, pushed by way of the necessity to make that means manipulation initiatives similar to textual content research and textual content iteration paintings. Nirenburg and Raskin have for this reason built a collection of heterogeneous equipment fitted to a specific job and coordinated on the point of information acquisition and runtime method structure implementations, a technique that still allows a variable point of automation in all its processes.Nirenburg and Raskin first talk about ontological semantics when it comes to different fields, together with cognitive technological know-how and the AI paradigm, the philosophy of technology, linguistic semantics and the philosophy of language, computational lexical semantics, and reviews in formal ontology. They then describe the content material of ontological semantics, discussing text-meaning illustration, static wisdom resources (including the ontology, the very fact repository, and the lexicon), the procedures all for textual content research, and the purchase of static knowledge.
Read or Download Ontological Semantics PDF
Similar semantics books
This paintings offers a unified concept of element inside common Grammar. It offers an strange mixture of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic methods to a unmarried area, and provides designated linguistic analyses of 5 languages with very varied aspectual platforms: English, French, Mandarin chinese language, Navajo and Russian.
During this brief monograph, John Horty explores the problems provided for Gottlob Frege's semantic idea, in addition to its smooth descendents, via the remedy of outlined expressions. The booklet starts by way of concentrating on the mental constraints governing Frege's idea of feel, or that means, and argues that, given those constraints, even the remedy of easy stipulative definitions led Frege to special problems.
Linguistic research of the discussion of Italian cinema, utilizing innovations and methodologies from pragmatics, dialog research and discourse research.
- Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization: A study of the syntactic realizations of the directive, commissive and expressive speech acts in English
- Context Construction As Mediated by Discourse Markers: An Adaptive Approach
- New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality (Routledge Studies in Multimodality)
- The Morphosyntax of Imperatives
- How Languages Work: An Introduction to Language and Linguistics
- Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory
Additional resources for Ontological Semantics
T h e s e a re o n e a n d th e s a m e t h in g , a t a d if fe r e n t g r a in s iz e Phenom ena K n o w in g th e p r e m is e s h e lp s t o s e le c t th e b e s t m e t h o d o lo g y o r c o m b in a t io n o f m e t h o d o lo g ie s M e t h o d o lo g y T h e o ry D e s c rip tio n T h e o r ie s a r e ju s tif ie d in te r m s o f q u a lity o f d e s c r ip t io n s th e y h e lp t o p r o d u c e ; w h e n th e q u a lit y o f d e s c r ip t io n a t ta in s a n o p tim u m , t h e o r ie s a r e n o lo n g e r needed P u r v ie w P r e m is e s Body J u s t i f ic a t i o n T h e b o d y d e f in e s t h e fo r m a t o f th e d e s c r ip tio n , u s e d b y m e th o d o lo g y Figure 12.
The notion of premise, under various names, has generated a great deal of lively debate in philosophy of science, mostly on the issues of its legitimacy and status vis-a-vis scientific theories. Dilworth (1994, 1996) refers to what we call premises as presuppositions or principles and states that “they cannot have been arrived at through the pursuit of science, but must be, in a definite sense, pre-scientific, or metascientific” (1996:2). 9A crucial point here is that this latter fact should not preclude careful examination of a theory’s premises.
As all premises, 7. Pustejovsky, in his response to the review (Pustejovsky 1998), commented on the differences in the premises, but those, even if valid, would be entailed by the much more essential differences in the purview. Page 41 this formulation “may be seen as concerning the most fundamental beliefs scientists as a group have regarding the nature of reality, as these beliefs are manifest in their scientific endeavors” (Dilworth 1996:1). The black box premise seems to be a version of the influential concept of supervenience in the philosophy of science, which, in its psychophysical incarnation, “is the claim that if something has a mental property at a time...