[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:04:00 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <311252.67872.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Eddy,
DE: If we're dealing with SOFTWARE PROGRAMS, I would argue we need to acknowledge the existence of UNL (unnatural language).

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 processes.  There is typically minimal organizational understanding of systems & processes that seem to work well enough.  The baby-boomers who've built these systems are about to retire.  When your "walking documentation" moves to Florida, the organization is now playing a form of slow-motion Russian roulette.  Sooner or later older systems break, malfunction or need to be modified... who's going to fix them?

By limiting NLs to UNLs and controlled languages you do not amplify intlligence of computers as it is claimed, but inhibit humans to work at their original, wider intelligence available through NLs. Not to mention the fact that people are compelled to use interfaces in dialogues that are devised by people with limited intelligence and knowledge.

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>