|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:04:00 +0000 (GMT)|
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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: Re: More on patents], cassidy|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] OntoNotes and the Omega ontology, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers, Rich Cooper|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|