Jim, (01)
I was trying to address an earlier note to this forum that
claimed natural language could be used with sufficient precision
even without computer assistance or formalized languages, such as
symbolic logic. The errors in the press coverage of the Airbus
problems reinforce the point I was trying to make. (02)
> I grant you that much of the early press coverage was also wrong. (03)
Not just the early coverage, apparently, because the story I quoted
was recent. (04)
> It eventually emerged that the groups in the two countries were
> NOT using two versions of the same program, but two different
> programs with different capabilities. (05)
There are many possible sources of errors in NL reports, including
vagueness, ambiguity, and confusion caused by different perspectives
on the same phenomena. Two programs written by different people (or
even by the same person at different times) typically embody different
perspectives -- or different "ontologies", as one might say. (06)
In any case, the fact that the press coverage is so confused and
confusing is just one more example of the need for logic and other
formalized languages when precision is essential. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|