Paola, (01)
Sometimes Pat may say true things: all the noise about CL looks as a
razmataz; for it is just a version of FOL, a conceptual instrument of
ontology, along with mathematics, semantics, etc.
Regards
Azamat (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] formal systems, common logic and lbase (03)
> >Hi Pat
>>
>>thanks for bringing this up
>>
>>It think CL could be very useful as KR for NLP applications
>
> OK, that wasn't clear from your earlier emails, which seemed (?) to
> be saying that CL *was* NLP.
> But why say CL instead of FOL? CL *is* FOL, after all. And people
> have certainly thought of using FOL as KR for NLP, in fact that was
> one of the very first ideas ever tried. It doesn't work (to sum up
> about a decade of research in a small sentence.)
>
>>The facts that you have developed the spec and never thought of all
>>possible applications of CL are not mutually exclusive from my point
>>of view
>
> Oh, indeed. But this particular application isn't a new idea.
>
>>Welty indeed confirmed that there is not work done in this area
>>that he knows of
>
> Not using CL as such, no, because CL is a very new standard. But
> using FOL, there has been a lot. And there is nothing in CL which
> takes it beyond FOL in any way useful for NLP. (Are you sure he
> wasn't talking about IKL? The new idea in IKL is indeed worth
> investigating for this kind of application, and I know Welty is
> interested in this, but IKL goes way beyond CL in expressive power.)
>
>>- but unlike you he did not rule out the possibility
>>of further investigation
>>(part of his lessons learned, I guess, never say never)
>>
>>I will send you a copy of the paper
>
> Please do.
>
> Pat
>
>>
>>cheers
>>PDM
>>
>>
>>On Nov 22, 2007 9:23 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >Rick
>>> >thanks for interpreting your thoughts. I am becoming increasingly
>>> >interested in CL, although I am still working out how it relates to
>>> >other formalisms, and how can I use it
>>> >As discussed briefly with Welty last week, it appears obvious to me
>>> >that CL is at core of NLP,
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you and Welty were
>>> discussing, but I can assure you that CL has
>>> almost nothing to do with NLP (assuming you mean
>>> by this, Natural Language Processing.) I know
>>> that Welty knows better than to make such a
>>> statement, so I presume you may have
>>> misunderstood him.
>>>
>>> CL is really a very limited, technical project: a
>>> version of first-order logic with a very
>>> forgiving syntax and a slightly modified
>>> semantics (modified in order to accommodate the
>>> syntactic freedom), stated as a 'standard' (i.e.
>>> with explicit conformance conditions spelled out)
>>> and allowing for a variety of alternative surface
>>> syntactic forms. The CL ISO documentation gives
>>> three such surface forms in detail, and others
>>> are possible. But these are all just syntactic
>>> variations on first-order logic, all with a
>>> common semantics. First-order logic is not NLP.
>>> (Some very early NLP work assumed that NL is a
>>> 'rich' version of a logic, but that idea has been
>>> thoroughly refuted by now. Certainly the
>>> languages that humans actually speak are not
>>> logics, and cannot be fully understood without
>>> taking a large number of non-logical
>>> considerations into account.)
>>>
>>> Pat Hayes
>>>
>>> PS. In case you feel that I am merely blustering
>>> here, I would point out that I authored the CL
>>> specification (apart from Annex B, which was
>>> written by John Sowa), so I do have something of
>>> an inside view both of what it says and of the
>>> presumptions and ideas on which it is based.
>>>
>>>
>>> >so I am interested
>>> >in your suggestion as a possible way forward in that direction
>>> >thanks
>>> >PDM
>>> >
>>> >> Given the current structure of CL & LBase, I believe proposition a)
>>> is
>>> >> where CL & LBase are now: a natural language description of the
>>> >> constraints to which the axioms of an open ended schematic system
>>> would
>>> >> adhere. Proposition b) presumes that we structure a logical
>>> environemt
>>> >> as illustrated below.
>>> >>
>>> >> Logical Environment
>>> >> |
>>> >> -----------------------------------------
>>> >> | | | |
>> > >> Languages Logics Models Theories
>>> >> |
>> > >> -----------------
>>> >> | |
>>> >> Axiomatic Natural Language
>>> >> |
>>> >> -------------------
>>> >> | |
>>> >> LBASE Common
>>> Logic
>>> >>
>>> >> I believe Feferman's open ended schematic system implies
>>> proposition b)
>>> >> and the evolution of formal systems towards logical environments.
>>> >>
>>> >> Rick
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >> > Thanks a lot Rick
>>> >> > havent had the chance to read the docs yet, but it sounds like a
>>> >> > fundamental question, although shifts in thinking paradigms may
>>> be
>>> >> > unsettling and painful
>>> >> > I do think that CL is going to stimulate the transition from NLP
>>> to AI
>>> >> > (so many acronyms)
>>> >> > and I have come to accept the possibility of a passive logical
>>> schema
>>> >> > but I am still reading
>>> >> > (and reading and reading)
>>> >> > I am interested in exploring your a) and b) propositions
>>> >> > what happend to this chap Feferman? did he get any traction?
>>> >> > will catch up with the reading and continue with this discussion
>>> at
>>> >> > the first opportunity
>>> >> > cheers
>>> >> > PDM
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 11/17/07, rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> All:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Folks might enjoy the Soloman Feferman lecture Goedel,
>>>Nagel, Minds and
>>> > > >> Machines. After recounting an exchange
>>> >between Godel and Nagel circa 1956,
>>> >> >> Feferman describes the implications of the minds vs.
>>>machines dichotomy
>>> >> >> ensuing from the exchange. To avoid the
>>> >>impass resulting from the dichotomy,
>>> >> >> Feferman proposes the redefinition of a formal system to an
>>>"open ended
>>> >> >> schematic axiomatic system." He claims this
>>> >>redefinition is a constructive
>>> >> >> step towards an "informative, systematic
>>> >>account at a theoretical level of
>>> >> >> how the mathematical mind works that
>>> >>squares with experience." He stresses
>>> >> >> the importance of a subject neutral theory
>>> >>of operations with basic schemata
>>> >> >> for language, arithmetic, set theory that would amount to a
>>>version of an
>>> >> >> untyped lambda calculus. Feferman concludes by rejecting
>>>any effective
>>> >> >> machine representation of mind as
>>> >>contemplated by Nagel, Penrose & others.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> So, what does this mean to Common Logic and
>>> >>LBase ? Seems to me that efforts
>>> >> >> like Common Logic and LBase would either
>>> >>have to a) be defined within this
>>> >> >> type of an open ended system, let's say as
>>> >>the natural language description
>>> >> >> of the constraints to which the axioms that make up the
>>>theory of such a
>>> >> >> system would adhere; or b) evolve into an
>>> >>open ended system that exhibits
>>> >> >> characteristics of transformation across languages, logics,
>>>models and
>>> >> >> theories.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Rick
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> >> >> 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
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _________________________________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>> > >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Paola Di Maio
>>> >School of IT
>>> >www.mfu.ac.th
>>> >*********************************************
>>> >
>>> >_________________________________________________________________
>>> >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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Paola Di Maio
>>School of IT
>>www.mfu.ac.th
>>*********************************************
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|