|To:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Adrian Walker <adrianw@xxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:28:29 -0500|
Thanks for your comments, below.
You wrote: "...IBL as far as I can see isn't using a logical language."
The logical basis for the IBL is in Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22, and in the earlier papers that it references. There's a model/fixpoint theory, an interpreter/compiler, and proofs that the i/c implements the model theory.
So, I would argue that the IBL is using a logical language, in quite a strong sense. The "Semantic Web Presentation" at www.reengineeringllc.com argues further that binding English to a solid logical basis like this is going to be essential in the real world.
Of course, we would all like to see a solution to the "big AI problem" of rigorously understanding all of natural language. The IBL FAQs mention that this is difficult. But meanwhile, the hope is that our system provides something reliable and useful, and perhaps a pointer to new approaches to the big problem.
Thanks in advance for any further discussion.
Dr. Adrian Walker
PO Box 1412
CT 06011-1412 USA
Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029
At 07:29 PM 1/1/04 -0800, you wrote:
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL, Michael Daconta|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Ontology sponsoring/marketing-sense question?, DonEMitchell|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL, Adam Pease|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Logical Language and English, Adam Pease|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|