[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Run, put, and set

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 19:50:14 -0700
Message-id: <20110612025018.6E535138C98@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

John, (et al),


comments below,





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 sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 7:31 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Run, put, and set



I never made that claim:

> I disagree specifically with your belief that run, put, set etc require
> the
> representation, storage and interpretation of those 645(?) viewpoints.

What I 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.  

Note that 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.

It is 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 spelling.

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’.  


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    (01)

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