Just to echo and comment on one point John made: (01)
>I would *never* attempt to force typical users to learn a CNL.
>What I am recommending is the use of CNLs as *output* from the computer
>to the humans. For *input*, strategy #3 implies
> 1. Design the system to interpret whatever people say or write,
> translate it to some version of logic, and generate a CNL echo.
> 2. Carry on a dialog with the humans until they agree that the echo
> (which may be anything from a phrase to a paragraph) expresses
> what they were trying to say.
>This is basically the way people communicate. It's very rare for people
>understand what other people are saying without a dialog.
>Just look at any thread on Ontolog Forum.
I completely agree. I am particularly concerned with how knowledge
creators can put their information into a form understandable by any other
computer or person, and this tactic seems to me thus far to be the only one
with much of a chance to work. (03)
It does depend, however, on having some common agreed language (including
both grammar and vocabulary) in which the shared information is expressed.
As John often reiterates, any syntactical form of FOL should be translatable
into any other, so some version of FOL seems to be a reasonable pick for the
But having that, one still needs to get the knowledge creator (or enterer)
to sit long enough to verify the FOL interpretation (even if presented back
in a very natural sounding CNL). Some form of incentive will probably be
needed. In a business organization, many different types of reward can be
arranged. For volunteer knowledge enterers, I wonder how they can be
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (08)