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

[Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

David --

As I may have mentioned on this list a few times (:-), there's new technology that supports the writing and running of applications in Executable English (EE). 

If you use abbreviations and acronyms in EE, its clear what they mean from the human readable context that is also executable.

Of course this does not solve your problem of acronyms in unreadable legacy COBOL code, but it does suggest that such code could usefully be reverse engineered into EE, rather than into non-executable English text that is then subject to interpretation by fallible human readers other than the authors.

                           Cheers,  -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rich -

On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:

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.   

What I'm beating on here is that the language used inside software applications—the systems that ensure milk gets delivered to my supermarket & that my checking account is properly balanced by the bank—the language used is U-G-L-Y.

Natural language is the stuff you read in the NYTimes... it's been explicitly written to be read by another human, PLUS edited by a professional editor for readability.  The software that runs invisibly in the background of our lives is written to make a computer do something.  It is mostly not written for readability.  Such resources easily succumb to statistical analysis.

When another human comes along & needs to read software, because there are effectively no rules for such language (other than the technical restrictions on length & separators between terms) it can be a slow & error-prone process to understand what cryptic abbreviations mean.

IF there were a mechanism available to help the analyst/programmer to quickly understand that at line 1503 in program LCCIIL02 "MIT" means male impotence test (rather than Massachusetts Institute of Technology) this would be socially useful.

To repeat: EM Forester's "The Machine Stops"... if we cannot maintain the "machines" (e.g. software applications) that support our society, this is not good. 

___________________

David Eddy

deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

781-455-0949

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

_________________________________________________________________
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)