[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:06:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <f60c1bfe9b690b926d2db573043b6a1f.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Rich and Leo,

The only thing I wanted to point out is the huge numbers of ambiguities in the verbs run, put, and set.

Both for humans and for computers, there are many, many ways of dealing with such ambiguities by using context.  There are also many, many ways of using underspecification.

But addressing those issues with an appropriate amount of detail would overwhelm everybody's mailbox.  I didn't want to do that.

The only thing I wanted to point out is that Longman's dictionary uses such words in their definitions without resolving the ambiguities of which sense is being used in which definition.  That practice is successful for human readers.  But it creates many problems for computers.

That is all I was trying to say.


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>