Hi Pat and all (01)
remind me please
what is CL for? what does it add to FOL or previous existing things? (02)
thanks
PDM (03)
On Nov 22, 2007 10:38 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >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
>
> (04)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|