I didn't want to get drawn into this, however... (01)
Adrian Walker wrote:
> Actually, although the support for English in the system is
> technically rather simple, the approach means that the executable
> English that one can usefully write is essentially un structured. The
> vocabulary is open, and so to a large extent is the syntax. This, of
> course, is puzzling if one is used to classical dictionary-grammar
> approaches. There is a trade off involved -- if an author wants the
> system to regard two sentences as having the same meaning, he must
> write that down explicitly. An upside is that the English meanings
> are precise. (02)
There is no relationship between the syntactic sugar dressed up
variety of a formal language that you are using and *English*,
i.e.,
English-as-the-natural-language-spoken-here-and-there-by-lots-of-people.
The only connection is in the eye of the beholder: i.e., the
human interpreter chooses to make a connection between the
kinds of restricted forms that are allowed to them and the
forms that they tend to use in their own language use. Since
you do not have an account of grammar that is compatible
to what is known of English, nor of the semantics that is
known for natural languages including English, nor for the
pragmatics and discourse structures that are used in natural
languages, any other claim verges on mispackaging. I think
it is important to be explicit about these issues just so
that it is clear when one is engaging in metaphor (valid
for sales purposes perhaps) and when one is doing theory,
either linguistics or ontology. (03)
> Actually, although the support for English in the system is
> technically rather simple, the approach means that the executable
> English that one can usefully write is essentially un structured. (04)
If what can write is unstructured, then this is also a major
deviation from natural language, in that what one can say
or write in natural language *is* structured, and highly
so. To understand this, look at any text written by a
half-proficient non-native speaker. The structure violations
at all levels of description are usually striking. (05)
Even the term:
> for executable English content (06)
is in danger of going round the loop of confusing
ontology, formalization and language again, just when things
were getting clearer. Replace "English content" with "pretty
printed formal representation with syntactic sugar", then
we'd all know both what was being done and that you know
what was being done! Of course, it is more difficult to sell
that way: but it is just *not* something that bares a natural or
simple relationship to natural language. (07)
> The vocabulary is open, and so to a large extent is the syntax.
> This, of course, is puzzling if one is used to classical
> dictionary-grammar approaches. (08)
:-) It is also puzzling when one is used to working
with natural language! (09)
John B. (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|