|To:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:05:31 -0600|
At 12:51 AM -0500 2/1/08, John F. Sowa wrote:
orders of magnitude.
Nonsense. But go ahead, prove me wrong: find some. I'd be delighted if you could.
PH> Remember, common sense isn't encyclopedia knowledge: its
the way those words are being used.
Well, yes that is true, in a sense; but because its 'implicit' doesn't mean it can be extracted by any algorithm. All claims like this are just noise until someone actually finds a way to extract such information. I know a lot of people are trying very hard, but nobody (including you and Arun) have so far managed to actually do any of this. I don't think most of the required content is even implicitly on the Web. Find me, anywhere on the Web other than in Cyc, an account of the different senses of 'cover' used in:
cover with paint
cover with skin
cover with hair
cover with a sheet
cover with dust
Or talk to a linguist about the many senses of "in" used in English (approximately 30, though it is hard to be exact), which require an ontology to be used in order to disambiguate them.
You can test that claim
This tells one nothing more than that the words are associated. That is not enough to state a coherent proposition, let alone a coherent piece of ontological content.
This is an enormous amount of data about how parties are related
to those other things.
Really? How does one extract information about relationships from free text or word associations? Associations, remember, are symmetrical.
Furthermore, much more detailed information
As Ive already pointed out, most common sense is never said or written to other people. And even for that which has been, I don't accept that random free NL text is 'the raw data' for common sense. Even if we could extract formalizable content from free text, the text does not tell us how to represent it in an ontology (just think, for example, of all the alternative ways of formalizing temporal relationships which are expressed by English tenses.) But in any case, any claims like this are at best a theoretical idea which has not yet been tested. Many very smart people are trying very hard to extract useful information from the unstructured Web, and they havn't managed to do very much of it yet. I don't know of ANY methods or projects (including analogical structure matching, by the way, which is being used actively by dozens of people at NorthWestern, where it was invented) which can be said to reliably extract a single nontrivial ontological proposition from the entire Web. If anyone reading this knows of one, by all means tell us about it. Not an idea or a belief, but a working system.
40 South Alcaniz St.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|