[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <d650d63950292742d12c269a0043ec75.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I was trying to be brief.  I'll try to clarify the point.

>> 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?

Short answer:  the  error rates are so high that it's useless for both computers and people to try to make sense out of what they get.

When highly trained professional annotators add semantic markup to texts, a level of agreement among annotators of 95% is unusually high.  In most cases, it's much lower.

When people with a typical college degree and a modest amount of instruction try to annotate texts according to some standard, 50% agreement is high.  In many cases, flipping a coin would give comparable results.

I have very little faith in those annotations and even less faith in the attempts by most people to express what they're trying to say in any artificial notation.

I admit that people can learn to write computer programs -- but that is only because the computer is an unforgiving taskmaster.  People either give up or they persist until they are rewarded by getting something useful from the machine.


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>