ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Form and content

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:37:18 -0800
Message-id: <20091210193725.95961138DB2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi John and all,

 

I missed the beginning of this form and content discussion, but I think it is important in answering some questions relevant to NLP.  

 

The distinction between form and content depends on what you consider form and what you consider content.  Clear definitions of what constitutes form, and what comprises content, are missing. 

 

If I use punctuators as background, I get interesting content from _expression_ number 1:

 

A [ j, k ] := 389,201.32;

 

And the signature of that _expression_ is:

 

_[_,_]:=N,N.N;

 

The next _expression_, number 2:

 

B [ r, q] := 0;

 

Has a signature

 

_[_,_]:=N;

 

Which is a left hand subsignature of _expression_ 1.  There is a modest analogy in those patterns to context free grammars, and to the dictionary morphological keys used in the link grammar.  

 

So one choice of background mapping leads to a whole set of signatures that can have interesting relationships with each other.  

 

But a different choice of background leads to a different conclusion.  If I use alphas as background so I can get some numeric and syntactic handle on other parts of morphology, I can get entirely different signatures.  

 

If I use alphas as background, I get interesting content from _expression_ number 1:

 

A [ j, k ] := 389,201.32;

 

And the signature of that _expression_ is:

 

_[_,_]:=289,201.32;

 

The next _expression_, number 2:

 

B [ r, q] := 0;

 

Has a signature

 

_[_,_]:=0;

 

This is NOT a left hand subsignature of _expression_ 1 because “0” doesn’t match with “2”.  But the first eight signature characters can match both _expression_ 1 and 2:

 

_[_,]:=  is a valid left hand signature of both expressions 1 and 2.  

 

The point I am trying to make here is that the choice between foreground and background is better characterized as an art than a science – highly subjective on the part of the observer.  Only after the choice has been made can the math be applied to the pattern set to get signatures that can be processed.

 

-Rich

 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:23 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Form and content

 

Most people on this list understand the distinction between form

and content, but some discussions tend to blur the distinction.

I received an offline question related to that point, and I thought

it might be useful to forward the answer to the list.

 

John Sowa

___________________________________________________________________

 

 > May I know what is the difference between semantic network

 > and ontology?

 

A semantic network is a graphical form for knowledge representation.

It can be used to express content of any kind.

 

An ontology is a formal definition of content, which could be

represented in many different KR languages and notations.

 

The distinction between form and content is critical, but some

KR languages incorporate some ontology into the basic notation.

Therefore, they would combine some content with the form.

 

For example, a temporal logic is likely to have at least a minimal

ontology for time built into the notation and rules of inference.

A KR language that includes arithmetic will have an ontology for

numbers and operations on numbers built into the basic language.

 

Common Logic is a version of logic that is as neutral as possible

about ontology.  For example, CL includes syntax for numerals, but

it does not assume any axioms about the integers represented by

those numerals.  One application might represent integers of

arbitrary length, but another might have an upper limit of 2^63.

 

Some people have complained about the lack of an ontology for

numbers in CL.  But there are many different ontologies that can

be added to CL as needed.  One example is the Mathematical toolkit

in the ISO standard for Z notation.  It's a fine ontology, it's

defined by an ISO standard, and anyone who wants it can use it

in conjunction with CL.  But anybody who needs a different

ontology for numbers can use that instead.

 

John Sowa

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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

 


_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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