[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:55:05 -0700
Message-id: <20100925165507.96ECE138E73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Agree completely, but I think David meant that some form of English communication, even if not full NLP would make the user interface more flexible, more useful to the operator.  I think he is right on that, and I think you agree as well with this reformulation of that position.  It’s just a viewpoint he is trying to describe to help illuminate this discussion.  


The real issue, from my viewpoint, is just how UNNATURAL the language can be before turning the users back to hiring computer operators instead of doing their work firsthand on the available computers and software.  My experience with UNNATURAL languages is that they don’t function as normally advertised.  





Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:04 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers


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>