Mike, (01)
At 02:31 PM 7/12/2003 -0400, MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote:
>In a message dated 7/12/2003 11:04:39 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
>adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>>Names are always a problem, since different people have different
>>intuitions about the right name for a concept. Linguistics will like this
>>name since it accords with common computational linguistic
>>terminology. For others, I agree that it might initially be confusing.
>
>
>Interesting. I had not heard that term in computational linguistics.
>Any good references in that area you like? (02)
Although I don't have it handy to double check that he uses this term, I
really like (03)
Parsons, T., "Events in the Semantics of English" (04)
>> >2. the range of the property is "Entity" which includes both Physical and
>> >Abstract things. Since the Process is a subclass of Physical, the targets
>> >of the Process should probably have a range of "Object" (subclass of
>> >Physical).
>>
>>A patient of an event could be information, which isn't physical, even
>>though the event itself is situated in space and time, due to its
>>relationship to an Agent.
>
>
>Ok, I'll buy that. Though Entity includes everything which is too broad.
>Some restraints on the target of a process are appropriate. (05)
ok, what restrictions would those be? Entity is awfully broad, and to be
avoided as an argument type constraint, but sometimes it's the best you can do. (06)
Adam (07)
>Back to work...
>
>- Mike
>---------------------------------------------------
>Michael C. Daconta
>Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
>www.daconta.net (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|