[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Grammarn [Was: using SKOS for controlled values for cont

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:17:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <56542.>
On Wed, October 13, 2010 11:17, John Bottoms said:
> Doug,
> It appears you are using a classic, but common, definition of grammar.
> It results in a rather static definition of language that is not useful
> for semantic applications.    (01)

I defined grammar as "a description of how that language is normally
used."  This allows for a non-static language.  I intended the reader
to understand that a grammar for a natural language is changeable.    (02)

I did not limit grammar to purely syntactic descriptions.  I don't see
how this definition results in any definition of language, much less
one that is not useful for semantic applications.    (03)

The question i addressed was whether grammar was the logic of a language,
not what type of grammar is the best for Natural Language Processing.    (04)

> Austin's definitions of language are more
> functional, although a bit primitive.    (05)

> What we need is a dictionary that shows us the linguistic uses of words
> that can be used with semantic applications. It should show the context
> for usage, and what action should take place as a result of usage. This
> follows along the work of Austin and I think many would agree with this
> approach.    (06)

I'm not sure if the pragmatics (what action should be taken) is
needed in order to obtain the semantics.    (07)

> WordNet tries to do some of this,    (08)

I fail to see that WordNet shows context for usage of its synsets
or specifies what action should be taken as the result of usage.
Often, different words in a synset are for use in different contexts.    (09)

The only connection i see between WordNet and grammar is its
classification of synsets by part of speech.    (010)

-- doug    (011)

> but it is only a beginning
> and relies on the reader to extract what is needed.    (012)

> -John Bottoms
>   FirstStar
> On 10/13/2010 10:24 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> Pavithra wrote:
>>> Isn't grammar the logic of the language? The verbs and the nouns and
>>> what should follow what?? )
>> Grammar in a natural language is a description of how that language is
>> normally used.  If an accepted grammar is not followed that means either
>> that the usage is somehow "improper", or that the grammar inadequately
>> describes the normal usage of the language.
>> Grammatical rules can be expressed using a logical formalism, but
>> that does not mean that the grammar itself is a logic.
>> -- doug
>    (013)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (014)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (015)

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    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>