Adrian, (01)
I was most definitely arguing for an "open" vocabulary: (02)
AW> John's point that you can describe anything in English is
> well taken. However, although the tradition is to do this
> computationally by means of a "controlled vocabulary", there
> is another way. It is in fact possible to get strict meanings
> using an *open* vocabulary. (03)
The controlled natural languages, such as ACE, CLCE, etc.,
definitely have an open vocabulary. The list of "reserved words"
is very small: (04)
and, or, not, if, then, some, every, is, has, a, an, the,
of, for, such that. (05)
The above list is a minimum, and there are some additions that
one could add to make the style more readable. The list of
content words is totally open-ended. (06)
As I said in my previous note, please look at the Rolf Schwitter's
web page for controlled NLs, which has pointers to a variety of
different versions: (07)
http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/%7Erolfs/controlled-natural-languages/
Controlled Natural Languages - Homepage (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|