|To:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:27:11 -0600|
At 3:45 PM -0500 2/1/08, John F. Sowa wrote:
Pat and Ed,
"just use"? Surely in order to use it, one must possess it in a usable form. This applies to our artifacts as well as to us. So how are we to get it into these artifacts?
PH> ... but because [knowledge in text is] 'implicit'
The first generation did, yes. But the statistical methods which replaced them also have severe limitations. The newest work in this area combines insights from both schools of thought. BUt in any case, the task of translation from one NL to another is not the same as that of extracting ontological information from NL text.
The most widely used MT system is SYSTRAN, which began
For translation, not for comprehension. Purely statistical translation systems have severe limitations on their usefulness, and have to be checked and corrected by human translators in order to be useable.
is encoded in the surface patterns, and
4. What methods of learning, statistics, analogy, pattern matching,
dictionaries such as the OED or the MW 3rd.
No, they catalog word senses. Related, but not the same task. Cyc is obliged to make many more distinctions than are found in any dictionary, but also ignores many dictionary distinctions based on for example on historical or lexicographical distinctions. No dictionary will make the continuant/occurrent contrast.
Those lists are
I wonder if this is true: but in any case it is irrelevant. People gain knowledge from many sources, and use it in many ways to help them understand language. Most of the common sense knowledge we all have of the everyday physical world is learned without the use of language at all, during the first 5 or 6 years of life; yet it is used during language comprehension in ways we have probably not fully understood yet.
People who use dictionaries
Im sure, but people are already NL comprehenders of their native tongue.
No, it does not.
A student who was learning English could read that information
A human student, even illiterate and with Downs syndrome, already has a huge wealth of common-sense knowledge of the world, far more than is in Cyc. (The example that sparked my own work on naive physics was what one needs to know in order to spread a folded sheet over a bed, an example which is still beyond Cyc.) What humans can do is irrelevant to the discussion, therefore.
natural language in order to solve some problem
What is the proposed connection between (1) reading an NL text and (2) solving a problem, if it does not involve somehow learning something from the reading that provides new functionality with the problem-solving? As problem-solving is not itself conducted in natural language, this intermediate knowledge must be somehow represented in a formalism which can be input to the problem-solving machinery. The passage from the NL text to this knowledge is what I mean by 'extraction'.
that one would
What problems can be solved by pattern matching? Cite ANY AI work which justifies this claim.
You entirely miss my point. It is not said because there is no need to say it, because it is presumed. Not because it is of no use. In fact, failures of comprehension can often be directly traced to the failures of such assumptions, and we have all kinds of conversational strategies for correcting such failures by reverting to an explanation of the missing information.
The original did, but they are using the technique in many Web-based applications and getting interesting results (in, for example, retrieval of 'relevant' news items for a given topic, or 'similar' web pages; but not in anything like NL understanding.)
It is impossible to process
I fail to see how they will solve any problems of NL understanding at any time. After all, the Web is only a large corpus of free text. Such corpora have been available for many years, and have not by themselves produced any NL understanding.
But I do
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I see no evidence for it. And after all, we have now first constructed such a knowledge base, so apparently it can be done.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Avril Styrman|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|