Randall wrote:
How will you do that? How will you _define_ it? As I understand you, mKR
> has no model-theoretic semantics, as IKL and CL do, so the best you can
> hope to do is come up with some kind of syntactic transliteration.
> Translation—which should preserve meaning—is not possible when there's
> no sense of meaning in the source form of the conversion. (01)
These questions caused by undervaluing the role of natural language in
machine semantics.
It is of use to remember that natural language is the most universal
representation language. The linguistic representations of knowledge
(theories, axioms, concepts) afford the richest semantic description
possible. Formal languages are artificial languages with restricted domains,
syntax, semantics and context of use. There is no meaningful statements or
rules in formal languages which can not be expressed in natural languages,
but there is a multitude of significant statements and rules which can not
be expressed in formal languages. If semantic interoperability and
translation imply exchanging invariant semantic patterns, it is about the
semantics of natural language in the first place. For the real world
semantic machines will be natural language machines. (02)
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall R Schulz" <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requirements of computer language semantics (03)
> On Wednesday March 18 2009, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> Chris
>>
>> I hereby resolve to stop talking and return to my task
>> of translating mKR to IKL.
>
> How will you do that? How will you _define_ it? As I understand you, mKR
> has no model-theoretic semantics, as IKL and CL do, so the best you can
> hope to do is come up with some kind of syntactic transliteration.
> Translation—which should preserve meaning—is not possible when there's
> no sense of meaning in the source form of the conversion.
>
> Considering it from another perspective, if you were to write a similar
> transliteration to a different language, say CycL, and someone had a
> CycL <=> IKL translator, would the result of mKR -> CycL => IKL be
> consistent with mKR -> IKL (where the -> are your mKR transliterators
> and => is the CycL to IKL translator)? Similarly, would mKR -> IKL =>
> CycL be consistent with mKR -> CycL?
>
>
> Randall Schulz
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|