Ed, John,
There are domains and there are depths of vocabulary. I had known
about Basic English's 850 words (C K Ogden) and I just learned that
there is also a Basic English 1500 word list (actually 2626 words).
BE1500 includes BE850 plus 350 international words, and 300 words
for the general fields of trade, economics, and science. Those 300
constitutes the beginning of a set of technical vocabularies.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE_1500
As I understand it, NATO uses Simplified English to machine
translate weapons system documentation to
Simplified<NATOlanguage>. These require the addition of one or
more technical vocabularies. There is even a Bible written in Basic
English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_in_Basic_English).
Voice of America uses Simplified English which permits 5 different
types of sentence constructs, though the grammar guidelines are
confusing. I'm trying to find out if there is an agreed-upon grammar
for VOA Simple English. There are also references to Special English
which appears to build on BE1500.
http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/about-us/
From:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages
To sum up, the preferred sentence forms are:
- Subject-Verb-DirectObject.
- Subject-Verb-IndirectObject.
- Subject-Verb-DirectObject-IndirectObject.
- Subject-Verb-DirectObject-SubordinateClause.
- Subject-Verb-DirectObject-IndirectObject-SubordinateClause.
What we don't have is a partitioning of a natural language. Many
have proposed new languages and I tire of examining them. But, I
would be very interested in seeing a reasonable partitioning or a
set of rules with 100% coverage that allows partitioning.
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
On 1/25/2012 2:09 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
Ed,
I completely agree with everything you said about terminology. I
realize the value of good terminologies, and I wasn't criticizing
any of that work.
EB
Remember first that the audience for that work is people who write
domain vocabularies, standards of practice and other semi-formal
publications. The objective is to explain to such persons how to select
terms, and conceive and write definitions that will be clear and
understandable to other people who have some training in the subject domain.
The point I wanted to make is that the overwhelming majority of
the so-called OWL ontologies on the web are *terminologies*.
Their definitions are stated as OWL comments, and they don't
use any of the reasoning methods designed for OWL.
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|