Ed, Amanda, and Leo, (01)
I'll start with Ed's comment, which summarizes all the problems
and issues we've been debating. (02)
EJB
> As Eliot Kinder, one of the Hypertext gurus, once put it:
> "It all comes down to people talking to people, no matter
> how much cool technology we throw at it." (03)
Yes. Every system of symbols maps to the NLs that people speak.
No matter how hard logicians try to enforce absolute precision,
people will interpret the symbols by using the same methods
they've been using since infancy. (04)
AV
> In short, the argument is not for less NL, it is for more and better. (05)
I agree with that. But I'd add that we have no other choice. To use
Ludwig W's terms, logic is just one more language game that we play.
The challenge is (a) to recognize that we're playing a game, and
(b) to find ways of using the computer to help us play it better. (06)
Leo
> Hey, you start somewhere. When you need more expressivity, you add it.
> That's what we do. (07)
I agree. But patching those tools together with sealing wax and
bailing wire is a temporary expedient. (08)
We need better ways of integrating the tools with each other,
with mainstream IT, and with better human interfaces. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|