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
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 AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers
DE: If we're dealing with SOFTWARE
PROGRAMS, I would argue we need to acknowledge the existence of UNL (unnatural
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