John et al: (01)
How should CycL (or other pseudo KIF language) programmers deal with
sayings such as "I've had it up to here!". While we all know it means
that the person who has said that is pretty angry, taken literally it has
a different meaning. Do NL processors use a context of use to modify the
meanings? In the above example, understanding what "it" represents is
critical but very difficult. (02)
Duane
________________________________________ (03)
Überity.com
Principal Data Architect &
Adobe LiveCycle ES Consultant Services
http://www.uberity.com
Blog | http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter | @duanechaos (04)
On 11-12-06 6:16 PM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
>On 12/6/2011 8:18 PM, Zhuk, Yefim wrote:
>> I remember that in the initial message you said (I think that Guha
>> said it too) that CycL was too complicated.
>
>The point was "too complicated for the average programmer or webmaster."
>If you're processing natural languages, you have to get into a very
>large number of issues -- linguistic, logical, philosophical, and
>computational. That requires a lot of sophistication.
>
>> Several years ago I also tried to figure out what is the best way to
>> deal with NL. At that time I thought about CycL as the best choice.
>> (See http://javaschool.com/EA/5/KnowledgeTechnologies.pdf )
>>
>> I still keep this idea because this is the only language, which
>>naturally
>> creates rules while describing the subject. Is it right that this is
>>the
>> only language, which has all necessary environment to speak and operate?
>
>To support the full logical complexity of what can be expressed in NLs,
>you do indeed require a very expressive version of logic. That means
>it must be even more expressive than Common Logic.
>
>A few years ago, there was a two-year project to define an expressive
>logic that would be upward compatible with Common Logic and sufficiently
>rich to express a wide variety of knowledge representation languages.
>
>Among the participants in that project were representatives from Cyc.
>It also included several other people who subscribe to Ontolog Forum,
>including Pat Hayes, Chris Menzel, Michael Gruninger, and me.
>
>The language that we specified was called IKL, and it included one
>additional feature beyond Common Logic: the ability to use metalanguage
>to make assertions about arbitrary propositions.
>
>In the following slides, I present an intro to Common Logic, and at the
>end (slides 29 to 36) I discuss IKL. I also include pointers to some
>documents about IKL:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/clintro.pdf
>
>I also put together the following sequence of 140 slides (divided into
>7 sections) on the topic "The goal of language understanding":
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal.pdf
>
>John
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|