Parthood and part–whole relations in Zulu language and culture

Keet, C. Maria; Khumalo, Langa

doi:10.3233/ao-200230

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…. L n ) (left), a primary language for the ontology (L n ), using a descriptive identifier and optional labels for other languages (centre), and mostly language-independent (L 0 in the semantic later) but with the requirement to have at least one label in one specified language (right) compared to English, which also revealed ontological distinctions, in that the list of 'universal' part-whole relations required both generalisation and refinements in order to accurately represent them [37].…”

Section: Multilingual Labelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly for plural terms, the concordial agreement in a language such as isiXhosa (a Niger-Congo B ('Bantu') language spoken in South Africa), combined with its agglutination, will alter the surface realisation of the annotation depending on its domain and range. Indeed, as highlighted by Keet and Khumalo, highly agglutinative languages can represent a challenge in ontologies, where it is possible that no single human-readable label can be prescribed to a property, due to the use of context-dependent affixes that modify the entity's name or their label [37].…”

Section: Multilingual Labelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Multilingualism in and for Ontologies

Gillis-Webber¹,

Keet²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Multilingual Semantic Web has been in focus for over a decade. Multilingualism in Linked Data and RDF has shown substantial adoption, but this is unclear for ontologies since the last review 15 years ago. One of the design goals for OWL was internationalisation, with the aim that an ontology is usable across languages and cultures. Much research to improve on multilingual ontologies has taken place in the meantime, and presumably multilingual linked data could use multilingual ontologies. Therefore, this review seeks to (i) elucidate and compare the modelling options for multilingual ontologies, (ii) examine extant ontologies for their multilingualism, and (iii) evaluate ontology editors for their ability to manage a multilingual ontology.Nine different principal approaches for modelling multilinguality in ontologies were identified, which fall into either of the following approaches: using multilingual labels, linguistic models, or a mapping-based approach. They are compared on design by means of an ad hoc visualisation mode of modelling multilingual information for ontologies, shortcomings, and what issues they aim to solve. For the ontologies, we extracted production-level and accessible ontologies from BioPortal and the LOV repositories, which had, at best, 6.77% and 15.74% multilingual ontologies, respectively, where most of them have only partial translations and they all use a labels-based approach only. Based on a set of nine tool requirements for managing multilingual ontologies, the assessment of seven relevant ontology editors showed that there are significant gaps in tooling support, with VocBench 3 nearest of meeting them all. This stock-taking may function as a new baseline and motivate new research directions for multilingual ontologies.

show abstract

Section: Multilingual Labelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multilingual Labelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Multilingualism in and for Ontologies

Gillis-Webber¹,

Keet²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Is it possible that x and z are (genuine functional) parts of some whole y but not do stand in a SCgraphPath relation to each other, or the other way around? This is indeed possible: they may be parts of a library y of header files that come with the C/C++ Integrated Development Environments such as Eclipse 11 or x and z are in a Python repository of modules y, such as PyPI 12 or your own one. In those cases, x and z are neither in the SCgraphPath relation nor, arguably, genuineFP but another part-whole relation, since there they are part of a collective.…”

Section: The Unifying Relation For Source Code Filesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure2. Summarised sketch of the part-whole taxonomy and informal descriptions of their domain and range (extended from[11]/simplified from[12]). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Computer Program as a Functional Whole

Keet

2020

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharing, downloading, and reusing software is common-place, some of which is carried out legally with open source software. When it is not legal, it is unclear how many infringements have taken place: does an infringement count for the artefact as a whole or for each source file of a computer program? To answer this question, it must first be established whether a computer program should be considered as an integral whole, a collection, or a mere set of distinct files, and why. We argue that a program is a functional whole, availing of, and combining, arguments from mereology, granularity, modularity, unity, and function to substantiate the claim. The argumentation and answer contributes to the ontology of software artefacts, may assist industry in litigation cases, and demonstrates that the notion of unifying relation is operationalisable.

show abstract

Ontology—With a Capital O

Keet

2023

The What and How of Modelling Information and Knowledge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parthood and part–whole relations in Zulu language and culture

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

A Review of Multilingualism in and for Ontologies

A Review of Multilingualism in and for Ontologies

The Computer Program as a Functional Whole

Ontology—With a Capital O

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About