John, (01)
John F. Sowa wrote:
<snip> (02)
> PD> Granted that a lot of progress has been made in processing
> > less expressive languages but is that any reason to move the
> > goal posts as it were to declare victory because by redefining
> > the problem a solution can be produced?
>
> People have been applying computers to natural language processing
> since the early 1950s, and they're still discovering more research
> problems than useful results. Many linguists still have a strong
> interest in working on such problems. Unfortunately, the people
> with money have lost interest in paying them.
>
So are you contending for a definition of ontology that includes: (03)
1. Is machine processable, (04)
and, (partially teasing but only partially) (05)
2. That people are willing to pay for. (06)
Assuming only the first condition, that is "a" definition of ontology
but certainly not the only legitimate use of the term "ontolog." (07)
Hope you are having a great day! (08)
Patrick (09)
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 (010)
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|