{"content":[{"text":"boundary cases at the edges of patterns must be identified for what they are and not allowed \n to interfere with reliable accounts of the normal structure and use of words in a language.","bbox":{"left":0.121057,"top":0.084205,"width":0.7411570000000001,"height":0.032169}},{"text":"The primary goal of the CPA (Corpus Pattern Analysis) project at Masaryk University, Brno \n (http://nlp.fi.muni.cz/projekty/cpa/) is to provide an inventory of all the normal patterns of \n use of all the normal verbs in English. Meanings of verbs in CPA are associated, not with \n verbs in isolation, but with verbs in relation to nouns and other clues: the nouns that co-occur \n with each verb in different clause roles: subjects, direct objects, and prepositional objects. \n Nouns are therefore grouped together into lexical sets according to how they affect the \n meanings of verbs. The hope is (or was) that these lexical sets could be grouped into a \n hierarchical ontology in order to reflect the structure of linguistic meaning and predict the \n meanings of verbs according to their groups or semantic frames. In this paper we examine \n some of the problems the are obstacles to the fulfilment of such a goal.","bbox":{"left":0.121057,"top":0.13337,"width":0.752104,"height":0.16327399999999997}},{"text":"2. Ontologies and lexical sets","bbox":{"left":0.121067,"top":0.330434,"width":0.28708400000000006,"height":0.01846399999999998}},{"text":"Ontology is a vogue word in modern computational linguistic and lexical research. It is used \n with several different meanings, some of which are of quite recent origin. We start, therefore, \n by summarizing these different meanings in three main groups and and selecting the one in \n which we shall use the term in this paper.","bbox":{"left":0.122882,"top":0.365511,"width":0.7544719999999999,"height":0.064946}},{"text":"In philosophical parlance, ontology is a mass noun denoting everything that exists (both \n physical and metaphysical), and hence the entire subject matter of philosophical enquiry. \n This concept of ontology goes back to Aristotle. It is not a sense that need concern us any \n further here.","bbox":{"left":0.122881,"top":0.447452,"width":0.722356,"height":0.064946}},{"text":"From this traditional philosophical definition it was but a short step (in the 20th century) to \n using the term as a count noun to denote a list of all known concepts, and hence all the words \n and expressions in a particular language that denote concepts, both abstract and concrete. \n This is the sense in which the term ontology is applied to WordNet and other, similar ordered \n collections of the contentful terms of a language. It is the basis of the sense in which we shall \n use the term in this paper, but, rather than engaging in armchair speculation about semantic \n relations and synonym set, we use corpus evidence to try to find out which words are \n collocates of each other and how different collocations are associated with different \n meanings. In other words, we focus specifically on identifying the empirical, corpus-driven \n analysis of paradigmatic sets of nouns that select a specific meaning of a verb when the two \n words (the noun and the verb) are used together in a sentence.","bbox":{"left":0.121064,"top":0.529394,"width":0.752624,"height":0.17966300000000002}},{"text":"A third sense of ontology has grown up among researchers working on the semantic web, by \n whom it is used to denote large sets of computationally tractable objects, including for \n example a particular person's name, an appointment between a named person and a named \n doctor, the date, time, and location of such an appointment, the doctor's appointment book, a \n set of names and addresses, the doctor's reference manuals, holiday guides, lists of hotels, \n documents used for reference or other purposes, medicines and other named business \n products, names of business enterprises, government departments and other institutions, and \n so on. This too is a sense that will not concern use here, beyond remarking that this new sense \n of ontology has nothing to do with words and meanings and has rich potential for confusion.","bbox":{"left":0.121055,"top":0.726052,"width":0.758166,"height":0.14688599999999996}},{"text":"An ordered collection of content words does not necessarily have to be arranged as a \n hierarchy of concepts, but in practice this is what is done, with some plausibility. Terms in","bbox":{"left":0.121065,"top":0.889934,"width":0.7302540000000001,"height":0.03217000000000003}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}