Thanks Matthew (01)
I'd like to explore the idea of CL as a useful application as KR for
NLP, but Pat
below says he things IKL would be more appropriate (02)
I will have to get back to you on this thoughts, any further comments welcome
thanks (03)
PDM (04)
On Nov 23, 2007 7:31 PM, <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Paola,
>
> Common Logic is a way to write down FOL in a computer interpretable
> way (like SQL). The important thing about it is that it is an ISO
> standard, so that people can build different tools around the language
> that will be able to communicate with each other (and of course compete
> with each other).
>
> Technically, it is an abstract syntax, but as I recall, there are at
> least two concrete syntaxes, one very close to KIF (Knowledge Interface
> Format) which inspired much of what is in Common Logic, and the other
> is in XML.
>
> So if you think of OWL on steroids (from a logic capability point of
> view) but more elegant (from a language design point of view) you will
> have the right idea.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Registered in England and Wales
> Registered number: 621148
> Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 23 November 2007 10:14
> > To: Pat Hayes
> > Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] formal systems, common logic and lbase
> >
> >
>
> > Hi Pat and all
> >
> > remind me please
> > what is CL for? what does it add to FOL or previous existing things?
> >
> > thanks
> > PDM
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|