Thanks! (01)
looks like some investigation to be done...wish seek feedback on
further thoughts as they come up
cheers
p (02)
On Nov 23, 2007 7:55 PM, <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Paola,
>
> Well IKL is of course an extension to Common Logic, rather than
> something different.
>
> I would expect CL or IKL to be useful for specifying the rules that would
> apply in an NLP application.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> > paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
>
> > Sent: 23 November 2007 12:48
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] formal systems, common logic and lbase
> >
> >
> > Thanks Matthew
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > I will have to get back to you on this thoughts, any further
> > comments welcome
> > thanks
> >
> > PDM
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> (03)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (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)
|