John, (et al),
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 7:31
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Run,
put, and set
made that claim:
> I disagree specifically with your belief that run, put, set etc require
> representation, storage and interpretation of those 645(?) viewpoints.
said is that words that have so many senses are not useful primitives for
defining other terms in an ontology.
It’s the CORRELATION of those words in specific
contexts that is necessary to make sense of a phrase, as a regular old person
does. Those correlations of key words made Google very happy, and
disappointed purists who relied on mathematically perfect parsers that insisted
on perfection only at the cost of enormous complexity. It was the use of
simple phrases that made Google’s users very happy also.
Anna Wierzbicka uses primitives to define words, but she assumes just one
meaning per primitive.
True, she has only one interpretation in mind because she is
only one person doing the interpretation of those words in her own lexicon. Those
same words she used have different meaning to people who read her list and then
native linguists reconsider her interpretations, and are highly nonunanimous, or
so I read somewhere somehow.
possible that one might use the character string 'run' to identify a primitive
type, but that string would not be the same as the English word with the same
It is a symbol of the English word as surely as any other
abstraction thereof. The entire patent database is made up of words and
figures, with a bunch more words than figures. The legally binding part
is in the claim sentences, about 20 on the average, with wide variations.
Therefore, IMHO, its all I have to work from – and only
the claim sentences matter, and they are made up entirely of words like ‘run’
used in as many ways as ‘run’ can conceivably (literally) be used,
just like ‘put’, ‘set” and ‘so on’.