Distinctions Produce a Taxonomic Lattice: Are These the Units of Mentalese?

Ontologies describe a conceptualization of a part of the world relevant to some application. What are the units of conceptualizations? Current ontologies often equate concepts with words from natural languages. Words are certainly not the smallest units of conceptualization, neither are the sets of synonyms of WordNet or other linguistically justified units. I suggest to take distinctions as basic units and to construct concepts from them whereas other approaches start with concepts and discover properties that distinguish them. Distinctions separate concepts and produce a taxonomic lattice, which contains the named concepts together with other potential conceptual units. The taxa are organized in a superclass/subclass (better supertaxa/subtaxa) relation and for any two taxa there is always a single least common supertaxon. Algorithms to maintain such a taxonomic structure and methods to combine different taxonomies are shown, using a four valued (relevance) logic as introduced by Belnap [1]. The novel aspect of the method is that distinctions that are only meaningful in the context of other distinctions restrict the lattice of concepts to the meaningful subset. The approach is restricted to the is_a relation between classes; it relates to Formal Concept Analysis, but replaces the “formal attributes” with (necessary) distinctions and uses a four-valued logic. It stresses the focus of recent ontological studies like DOLCE or WonderWeb on qualities; it is expected that distinctions as introduced here for the is_a hierarchy influence the mereological aspects of an ontology (i.e., the part_of relation) and connect to Gibson's affordances [2] and contribute to the classification of operations.

[1]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[2]  P. Burmeister Formal concept analysis with ConImp : introduction to the basic features , 2003 .

[3]  Giuseppe Longo,et al.  Categories, types and structures - an introduction to category theory for the working computer scientist , 1991, Foundations of computing.

[4]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Words and rules , 1998 .

[5]  Simon L. Peyton Jones,et al.  Report on the programming language Haskell: a non-strict, purely functional language version 1.2 , 1992, SIGP.

[6]  E. Rosch ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1 , 1973 .

[7]  G. Lakoff Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[8]  Rudolf Wille,et al.  Boolean Concept Logic , 2000, ICCS.

[9]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[10]  John B. Carroll,et al.  Language, Thought, and Reality (Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf). , 1957 .

[11]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[12]  Umberto Straccia A Four-Valued Fuzzy Propositional Logic , 1997, IJCAI.

[13]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE , 2002, EKAW.

[14]  J. Fodor Précis of The Modularity of Mind , 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[15]  Uta Priss,et al.  Formal concept analysis in information science , 2006, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[17]  Marc Ehrig,et al.  Category Theory in Ontology Research: Concrete Gain from an Abstract Approach , 2005 .

[18]  Ralf Hinze,et al.  Haskell 98 — A Non−strict‚ Purely Functional Language , 1999 .

[19]  Bernhard Ganter,et al.  Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues , 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  WonderWeb Deliverable D18 Ontology Library , 2003 .

[21]  Umberto Eco,et al.  Zeichen : Einführung in einen Begriff und seine Geschichte , 1977 .