[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:17:09 -0700
Message-id: <20090627211742.21E6A138C1F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi John,    (01)

<snip/>    (02)

RC> Or is there a better way to represent English parsed sentences?    (03)

Many other languages.  For example, conceptual graphs, which are
a version of logic that can be represented in CGIF format, which
is similar to CLIF.    (04)

Rgc: I'm thinking of the internal, hot ram memory image of the data when I
think of lisp, or relational tables for that matter.  So the software that
"eval"s the model expression doesn't have to make a lot of inefficient
moves.  That means the interpretive software can more quickly focus on
likely tasks, or fast tasks, or otherwise represent actions in a way that
lets them have the full expressiveness that lisp had.  Data as programs as
data as programs as ... went out with most languages when lisp fell off the
AI respectability cliff.  I haven't found a good replacement for internal
representations, so JSON seemed like a good prospect, having methods as well
as properties.      (05)

Rgc: Of course, prolog is a nice language, but has any version ever put in a
satisfactory "eval" of a simple action representation like lisp did?  It
appears that JSON allows that, unless I misinterpreted your statement.
Prolog is not a very good language for interchange or internal
representation unless you know something about it that I don't.  Suggestions
appreciated.     (06)

RC> Your description of controlled English tools, along with examples
 > like Adrian's, seems to be the proper direction for AI IMHO.
 > Do you agree?    (07)

Yes, but not as a replacement for languages like LISP, Prolog, and CL.
I would use them at the interface with humans.    (08)

John    (09)

Rgc: agreed, at the interface with humans.  But that means a language that
can resolve inconsistencies in the conversation, validate risky actions
before performing them, simulate a model under specified conditions, and
otherwise reason about ACTIONS in ways that we do not reason about DATA.      (010)

Why do CGs interface better with humans than IDEF0 or other action rep
choices?      (011)

If you see the tortured and twisted terrain my thinking has taken and if you
believe I'm missing something about CL, CGs, CEs or other, please let me
know.  I'm just explaining my thought processes, and perhaps CGs should be
in them somehow, but I haven't gotten the economic rationale - why would I
want to use CGs instead of IDEF0 as a graphical representation for
linguistic information?  Are they simply two versions of the same action
representations?  If so, then perhaps I can present both views and let the
user take her pick between CGs and OO JSON-interpreters.      (012)

-Rich    (013)

Rich Cooper
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com    (014)

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    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>