GWC 2008

Consistent Annotation of EuroWordNet with the Top Concept Ontology 15
As a starting point, there were four BCs manually annotated in EWN: {artifact} as
[Object], {abstraction} as [Concept], {attribute} as [Property] and {sculpture} as
[ImageRepresentation]. Figure 2 shows the clear-cut result of a direct expansion of
properties by feature inheritance.
As a result of this process, several shocking annotations can be noticed at a first
sight, for instance: (1) {musical composition}, {dance} and {impressionism} as
[Object]; (2) {sculpture} as [Property], and (3) {Statue_of_Liberty} as [Concept].
Notice that we became aware of all this situation by inspecting the incompatibility
of those TCO features inherited by {Statue of Liberty}. Due to multiple inheritance,
the popular monument was taken to be an artifact, hence an object; but at the same
time a kind of {art} —as e.g. {dance}, which is clearly an event, while
{impressionism} is nothing but a concept. Moreover, {Statue of Liberty} appeared to
be an abstraction, a [Concept], just as the geometric notion of a {plane}. Last, the
statue also inherited [Property]. So, the result of applying full inheritance of
ontological properties in WN1.6 resulted in multiple incompatible features eventually
colliding at {Statue_of_Liberty}.
The analysis of the situation led to blockage of the following hierarchy paths, as it
is shown in Figure 3:
- Between {artifact} and {creation}
- Between {art} and {dance} (but not between {art} and {genre})
- Between {plastic_art} and {sculpture}
- Between {three_dimensional_figure} and {sculpture}
Moreover, {creation} was underspecified by assigning the upmost neutral feature
[Top] and [Property] was deleted in {attribute} since it is better represented by
{attribute}'s hyponym {property} while the rest of hyponynms here considered (lines,
planes, etc.) are, according to their glosses and relations, concepts.
The reasons behind these changes were the following:
(1) Although, intuitively, one might say that a creation is an artifact (for
creations are made by men), according to the glosses and hyponyms one can
realize that the synset {artifact} subsumes objects, while {creation}
subsumes both objects and activities brought about by men (e.g. a “musical
composition”). Therefore, {creation} can not inherit first order features,
since they are incompatible with second order ones. Consequently,
{creation} was here labeled as [Top] thus allowing its hyponyms to be
further specified as entities or events since neither its gloss (“something that
has been brought into existence by someone”) nor the lack of homogeneity
of its hyponyms allowed to make a choice. In a more flexible version of the
TCO, as that proposed by [10], [Origin] features could be also attributed to
second and third order entities. This will allow to assign [Artifact] to synsets
like {Creation}. We intend to evolve to a TCO like this in the future.
(2) Although, intuitively, one might say that dance is a kind of art, according to
the glosses and other hyponyms it is realized that {art} refers to the concept
(like e.g. {impressionism}) while {dance} refers to an activity. Therefore,
while “art” and “impressionism” are considered ideas, “dance”, however, is
an activity.