Ed wrote: (01)
>And yes, that is the difference in our approaches. In my case, it is
>compounded by my recent re-education in natural language processing,
>which leads me to believe that almost all active NLP projects use a
>Davidsonian model of events/occurrences. This is in part a consequence of
>the (IMO ill-founded) academic love affair with RDF triples. (As I recall, in
>the
>1970s, there was a similar popular notion that parses of formal languages
>would all be triples, with arguments about linked graphs vs. Polish notation
>structures. But there was a camp, led (if I recall correctly) by Jeffrey Aho,
>who argued for "quads", as a representation powerful enough to capture the
>substance of any computational structure without requiring dyadic
>subterfuges.) (02)
Ed, (03)
I don't think the use of Davidsonian event-indexed semantics in NLP really has
anything to do with RDF triples. I've been doing computational
linguistics/semantics, in one form or another, for nearly 30 years, and
RDF-factoring doesn't influence the choice/use of event-indexing. (04)
Thanks,
Leo (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|