k wrote:
I felt the same way when I was doing research into this, about 4 years ago now. I think that basically describes a universal ontology, and the fact is that such a thing has massive hurdles, not least because of multiple word meanings.
Sadly, you'd have to put "Fruit" not only into the context of the words you noted (and others), but also in the context of the slang usage for "effeminate" or "gay". "apple" would have to be linked to the fruit-plant sense and the computer-hardware-software-corporation sense and the Beatles-music sense, etc. etc.
Wikipedia handles that with those disambiguation pages, as would (presently at least) any sufficiently complex word-to-word or phrase-to-phrase ontology. Or, that's my meagre understanding of the situation at least.
-k
It's ashame that no one uses threaded tags so that relationships might be easier to figure out by context.
Such as:
"computers|apple|macintosh" or "plant|apple|macintosh|red"
If such connections would be recognized by a dictionary, a user could be prompted to specify which character of the questionable words was implied (or even a new use). So someone could tag, and then relate context.
