Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms

[John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave & Amanda,

Yes, this sounds like the scare generated by a term that was auto-corrected on a smart phone. I think the _expression_ was "gunna be at west hall today" which was auto-corrected to "gunman be at west hall today".

This gets revisited every decade or so. The last one was a MT _expression_ "Your son was suspended for mischief" that got translated to "Your child was hung for criminal actions".

Ain't semantics great! Also, I don't believe in "deep semantics". You either understand it as intended or you have a miscommunication.

-John Bottoms
 FirstStar Systems
 Concord, MA

On 3/2/2012 10:52 AM, David Eddy wrote:

Amanda -

On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Amanda Vizedom wrote:

For this kind of usage, better accuracy and intuitiveness come from calling a concept ont1:0395 (some existing label), and deciding based on meaning whether it should also have labels ("gruefulit", sysA) or ("gruefulit", sysB) or neither. 

Surely there's a rollicking good story behind "gruefulit"?

I think I agree with this approach... are you saying that by some process gruefulit A & B are presented/made known to a human—I seriously doubt if I'd trust an automated machine translation process—and the human decides equivalence or not?

Do I grok that correctly?

___________________

David Eddy

deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

781-455-0949

_________________________________________________________________
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)