On Wed, March 20, 2013 06:14, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ...
> JFS
> ...
> 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. (01)
Only if there were only two choices for annotation of the whole document. (02)
> I have very little faith in those annotations (03)
To be complete; certainly. I expect that such annotation presents *some*
of what the text intended. (04)
> and even less faith in the attempts by most people to express
> what they're trying to say in any artificial notation. (05)
Are you considering text to be an artificial notation? Other than text,
i expect that most adults could express a sum of integers in
artificial notation well. (06)
For expressing something more complex, one would want someone
skilled in using that notation. One would want a programmer to
encode a program. Similarly, we should want someone skilled in
the use of a particular code set to use it. Similarly, i don't know
why we should expect someone unskilled in an ontology language
to be able to properly encode something in that language. (07)
> 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. (08)
So, ontology languages should be similar. But they should also help the
user appropriately as material in such a language is entered into a
machine. (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)
|