[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Context and Inter-annotator agreement

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:38:29 -0400
Message-id: <165501ce8f8d$f4765700$dd630500$@micra.com>
Michael,    (01)

> When you put words together, you often create completely new senses that
cannot be grasped by looking at indidual word senses only.    (02)

  In cooperative communication (excluding poetry and intentionally vague or
emotionally evocative language) any word senses that are not part of a
previously agreed and mutually understood lexicon may be very difficult to
grasp, defeating the point of communication.  Of course, new words or senses
may be defined in a communication.    Perhaps you have some examples of "new
senses" that are not already part of the existing English lexicon that will
actually be *accurately* understood by the listener or reader?       (03)

For the purpose of research on language understanding, it seems to be a good
idea to first try to solve the base problem, which has a great deal of
practical utility, which is to understand a communication that the speaker
*intends* to be understood accurately.  That is my current focus.   People
are really good at doing that, and I am concerned about how to get machines
to do that too.  That is where a common set of semantic primitives
represented  in a common foundation ontology is, I expect, likely to serve
very well.    (04)

We can worry about odd hypothetical worlds at a later phase.    (05)

Pat    (06)

Patrick Cassidy
1-908-561-3416    (07)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 6:03 AM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Context and Inter-annotator agreement    (08)

Hello Patrick,    (09)

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 02:21:45PM -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> [JFS] . Fundamental principle:  People think in *words*, not in *word
>    * Really?  I sure don???t.  Without the textual content to disambiguate
words, communication would be extremely error-prone.   Where does that
notion come from?    (010)

I am currently reading the Novel "Embassytown" about an alien race that
communicates sense directly. They have a language but it is superfluous.    (011)

Those poor things can only communicate "real world" sense. Lies, metaphor
and "deeper" thinking are beyond them. The author sees the loose coupling
between word and sense as the fundamental feature of language.    (012)

When you put words together, you often create completely new senses that
cannot be grasped by looking at indidual word senses only.    (013)

Regards,    (014)

Michael Brunnbauer    (015)

++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++  E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)  USt-IdNr. 
++ DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel    (016)

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    (017)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>