|From:||Jawit Kien <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:17:14 -0600|
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Other possible sources of essential primitives could be the 3000 most frequent Chinese characters (covering 98.9% of modern text) and the 2000 most common signs of AMESLAN. But these symbols have not been tested as a "defining vocabulary".
just because you can recognise the characters, doesn't mean you know what they mean.
Apparently Chinese characters, much like other words in a natural language, depend
on the way they are used to disambiguate their meaning.
Perhaps we should be discussing that issue:
ie: what methods exist to disambiguate the meaning of a word or phrase, so that it can be precisely (enough for a purpose) axiomatised?
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, sean barker|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Patrick Cassidy|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|