Matches in LOV for { ?s ?p This ontology is a composition of some content design patterns for the semiotic triangle.\nIts structure is extracted from DOLCE-Ultralite (DOLCE+c.DnS), but it uses a different terminology, and explicitly defines the semiotic function: Expression is the semiotic term for dul:InformationObject, when they actually express or denote something; Meaning is the semiotic term for dul:SocialObject, when they are actually expressed by something, or are interpretation of something; Reference is the semiotic term for dul:Entity, when they are interpreted or denoted by something.\nThe denotes relation is equivalent to dul:isAbout, the expresses relation is imported from DOLCE Ultralite, and the hasInterpretation relation generalizes over: dul:isClassifiedBy, dul:isCoveredBy, dul:isDescribedBy, dul:isUnifiedBy, and dul:satisfies\n\nExtensions to the triangle:\nA typical extension of the semiotic triangle concerns the participation of agents: this is introduced by using the dul:conceptualizes relation, holding between a dul:Agent and a dul:SocialObject (the Meaning). \nAn additional extension concerns semiotic context: this is provided by including four notions of 'Context': 'Paradigm' (the context of the conceptualized meaning), 'KnowledgeCollective' (the context of agents that conceptualize the paradigm), 'Cotext' (the context of expressions), and dul:Situation (the context of denoted entities).\nA final extension links semiotics to formal semantics: this is provided by reusing dul:FormalEntity, iol:isGroundingFor, iol:FormalExpression, iol:isAssignedTo, iol:FormalLanguage, etc.\n\nThe complete pattern allows to declare relations between Expression(s) and their Reference(s) (denotes), between Expression(s) and their Meaning (dul:expresses), between Meaning(s) and Reference(s) (isInterpretationOf), between Reference(s) and dul:FormalEntity(ies) (iol:isGroundingFor), between dul:FormalEntity(ies) and iol:FormalExpression(s) (iol:isAssignedTo).\n\nThis 'formalization pathway' moves from Expression(s) to iol:FormalExpression(s) by taking into account both Meaning(s) and Referent(s). The informal denotation of Expression(s) is moved to a formal denotation (iol:isAssignedTo) of iol:FormalExpression(s).\nFor example: the Expression 'Mariachi' dul:expresses the dul:Concept (Meaning) 'MexicanStreetSinger' that isInterpretationOf the dul:Collection (Reference) 'TheStreetSingersFromMexico'. 'TheStreetSingersFromMexico' then iol:isGroundingFor e.g. the dul:Set (dul:FormalEntity) that includes all Mexican street singers, which iol:isAssignedTo e.g. the iol:FormalExpression 'owl:Class#Mariachi'.\n\nThe formalization pathway enables a technique to move from/to socio-cognitive and formal semantics through denotation, in the Tarskian sense. As a matter of fact, translating directly a Meaning into a FormalEntity (or viceversa) is not always clearly implementable, while passing through an extensional grounding is easier and more accessible to intuition.\n\nAmong possible uses, information extraction, ontology learning, KOS reengineering, lexical semantics, etc. For example, statistical learning of instances for a dul:Concept would be modelled as the building of a dul:Collection that isInterpretationOf the dul:Concept, but also dul:isGroundingFor a dul:Set that iol:isAssignedTo e.g. an owl:Class.\n\nAn additional semiotic pattern is based on the hasInterpretant relation, which allows to link two Expression(s) (or dul:InformationRealization(s)), when the second one counts as a Meaning (or a relatedMeaning) of the first. \nIn practice, this is implemented by allowing a relation between an Expression (or its realization), and whatever Meaning (or another dul:InformationRealization). Technically speaking, the correct path would be passing through another Expression used to express a Meaning for the first one:\n\n(Exp1 hasInterpretant some (Exp2 and expresses some (Meaning and isExpressedBy some Exp1)))\n\nor even:\n\n(Exp1 hasInterpretant some (Exp2 and expresses some (Meaning and relatedMeaning some (Meaning and isExpressedBy some Exp1))))\n\nbut given the expressive power of OWL, which lacks co-reference, this is the best sub-optimal solution.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- LMM_L1.owl comment "This ontology is a composition of some content design patterns for the semiotic triangle.\nIts structure is extracted from DOLCE-Ultralite (DOLCE+c.DnS), but it uses a different terminology, and explicitly defines the semiotic function: Expression is the semiotic term for dul:InformationObject, when they actually express or denote something; Meaning is the semiotic term for dul:SocialObject, when they are actually expressed by something, or are interpretation of something; Reference is the semiotic term for dul:Entity, when they are interpreted or denoted by something.\nThe denotes relation is equivalent to dul:isAbout, the expresses relation is imported from DOLCE Ultralite, and the hasInterpretation relation generalizes over: dul:isClassifiedBy, dul:isCoveredBy, dul:isDescribedBy, dul:isUnifiedBy, and dul:satisfies\n\nExtensions to the triangle:\nA typical extension of the semiotic triangle concerns the participation of agents: this is introduced by using the dul:conceptualizes relation, holding between a dul:Agent and a dul:SocialObject (the Meaning). \nAn additional extension concerns semiotic context: this is provided by including four notions of 'Context': 'Paradigm' (the context of the conceptualized meaning), 'KnowledgeCollective' (the context of agents that conceptualize the paradigm), 'Cotext' (the context of expressions), and dul:Situation (the context of denoted entities).\nA final extension links semiotics to formal semantics: this is provided by reusing dul:FormalEntity, iol:isGroundingFor, iol:FormalExpression, iol:isAssignedTo, iol:FormalLanguage, etc.\n\nThe complete pattern allows to declare relations between Expression(s) and their Reference(s) (denotes), between Expression(s) and their Meaning (dul:expresses), between Meaning(s) and Reference(s) (isInterpretationOf), between Reference(s) and dul:FormalEntity(ies) (iol:isGroundingFor), between dul:FormalEntity(ies) and iol:FormalExpression(s) (iol:isAssignedTo).\n\nThis 'formalization pathway' moves from Expression(s) to iol:FormalExpression(s) by taking into account both Meaning(s) and Referent(s). The informal denotation of Expression(s) is moved to a formal denotation (iol:isAssignedTo) of iol:FormalExpression(s).\nFor example: the Expression 'Mariachi' dul:expresses the dul:Concept (Meaning) 'MexicanStreetSinger' that isInterpretationOf the dul:Collection (Reference) 'TheStreetSingersFromMexico'. 'TheStreetSingersFromMexico' then iol:isGroundingFor e.g. the dul:Set (dul:FormalEntity) that includes all Mexican street singers, which iol:isAssignedTo e.g. the iol:FormalExpression 'owl:Class#Mariachi'.\n\nThe formalization pathway enables a technique to move from/to socio-cognitive and formal semantics through denotation, in the Tarskian sense. As a matter of fact, translating directly a Meaning into a FormalEntity (or viceversa) is not always clearly implementable, while passing through an extensional grounding is easier and more accessible to intuition.\n\nAmong possible uses, information extraction, ontology learning, KOS reengineering, lexical semantics, etc. For example, statistical learning of instances for a dul:Concept would be modelled as the building of a dul:Collection that isInterpretationOf the dul:Concept, but also dul:isGroundingFor a dul:Set that iol:isAssignedTo e.g. an owl:Class.\n\nAn additional semiotic pattern is based on the hasInterpretant relation, which allows to link two Expression(s) (or dul:InformationRealization(s)), when the second one counts as a Meaning (or a relatedMeaning) of the first. \nIn practice, this is implemented by allowing a relation between an Expression (or its realization), and whatever Meaning (or another dul:InformationRealization). Technically speaking, the correct path would be passing through another Expression used to express a Meaning for the first one:\n\n(Exp1 hasInterpretant some (Exp2 and expresses some (Meaning and isExpressedBy some Exp1)))\n\nor even:\n\n(Exp1 hasInterpretant some (Exp2 and expresses some (Meaning and relatedMeaning some (Meaning and isExpressedBy some Exp1))))\n\nbut given the expressive power of OWL, which lacks co-reference, this is the best sub-optimal solution.".