[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:57:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <471980.99253.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You refer to my quote from Wikipedia, of which I highlighted the following 
Main points: … add semantic information…associating variable and function references with their definitions…parsing … a complete parse tree, meaning that this phase logically follows the parsing phase,


While I agree with you on the points raised, it appears to me that the only useful information to find as far as the semantics (function) of the code is the source code, as opposed to all sorts of commentaries made in the history of the product life cycle.Even though, that wass not my point as you can see above. My point is that you want to analyze a program (in fact, any human artifact) semantically, which is an exercise involving the identification of definitions, interpreting semantic information as a structure with cross-references, etc.


The reason that UNL needs to be at the table is that global society is on a track of being totally dependent on software driven processess.

I believe you. But consider this:

Curiously enough, we have not managed to use even the simplest terms/paradigms of data processing in describing our models of the world (in thinking). Typically, there is a great hullaboo about databases and knowledge representation collections, including ontologies but nothing is modelled about their processing in the mind as an analogy to computer EDP, except from trying to read the mind by using invasive technology in neurology. It should not matter how data in mind are processed, we should look at it as a black box and be concerned with the output and the fact that only a part of the workings of the mind is done rationally and be influenced by will and reason. Typically, the news headings in the media today are undergoing a change and the naming conventions of passages and any lengths off texts in the internet seem to be downright crazy and intentionally ambiguous, because tension creatd by paradoxes is supposed to increase readership.




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>