[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:50:59 -0700
Message-id: <FADDC695EA854E9FB9ED3DF26D5B007C@Gateway>

Human to human language is widely unrestricted, even nonsyntactic, in patent documents.  Yet those documents are carefully written by the inventor, carefully critiqued through at least two office actions by the PTO examiner, and the claim language is debated, reviewed, checked against prior art, and finally allowed to issue for some small fraction of patent applications. 


My software treats them as unrestricted text, and I think that is by far the most feasible and effective way to treat them.  It is fairly easy to break up the text into sentences, with periods, question marks and exclamations able to detect at least 80% of the sentence endings.  False endings (especially with periods and acronyms) can be effective endings in most of the other 20%, with a few mismarks remaining in nearly every patent. 


Claim language, though unrestricted, has some statutory words and punctuations which can be detected and used to effectively break long claim statements (well over 100 words) into elements. 


The elements also contain rarer words that designate the claimed materials, ideas, systems and methods.  Those rarer words are useful in tracing each claim element back to sentences in the specification which form the disclosure of the invention. 


So my software uses mostly unrestricted forms of English, except for the statutory lexicon needed to structure the interpretation out of the nearly unrestricted specifications, claims, abstract, and more highly structured database-like columns. 





Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali H
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:34 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology


Hi John,


By this


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:04 AM, <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I believe that it is easier to process unrestricted NL as written by humans who are writing for other humans than it is to correct the errors in the artificial languages written by humans who are writing for machines.

Do you mean that it would be easier to process by machines as well? Easier to process by whom and how?




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>