Re: Re: Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
Hi,
At 08:30 21/08/01 -0400, yy wrote:
>There are some graphs of decision trees in Zhang1998 :
>
>http://acad88.sahs.uth.tmc.edu/research/publications/publications-
>zhang.htm
I did not manage to go on the site. Is the address right ?
>Regarding the 2 example sentences, to me there is no hint of
>any deeper meaning than a report of moving block x to peg y.
>Maybe I'm losing some information.
You are losing information, because at the mental level there are many ways
for moving a block to a peg. For example you can move it on a peg or to a
peg, you can move it on a disk itself on a peg, you can take it from a peg
in order to get it free and move it to anyother peg, you have to move it in
order to get a disk free, and so on...
I can have this from the organisation of the linguistic marks. But sure, it
is a litle complicated. An it is very complicated to explain and especially
to give all the justifications at the same time
>I'm guessing your test subjects are playing a series of
>games that look different but are isomorphic, and you're
>looking for invariants and transformations in this way?
One of my students study Tea Ceremony solved by elderly
It is interesting too to compare the resolution with different instructions
( We have studied Toh formulated as a tower or as a set of disks, the
student is finishing her phd), or with different populations (we did with
handicapped people for two years)
>By the way,that's an interesting question in category theory:
>when are two games the same.
It is what she will have to do: the comparaison Toh and Tea Ceremony with
elderly and with verbal reports.
she started the research this year.
>So good luck trying SUMO to code this. Sounds a bit 'cuckoo' to me.
>
>yy
'cuckoo' at physical level perhaps yes.
But at mental levels things are very complicated: different specific sets
are emerging as whole from the interaction between disks. furthermore
single disks are extracted from a whole set and they have to be structured
at another level. This stucturation works step by step : a disk is put in
foreground while the other one is put in the background. Later it is the
reverse, until an equivalence between the two disks is constructed inside
the whole set.
At the same time moves are also progressively structured in a similar way
but not at the same moment than the disks, until macro actions are
constructed and progressively automatizations.
I can find all these on-line structurations step by step from a careful
linguistic analysis.
I found always the same kind of processus whatever verbal productions are,
because I consider the difference which can be observed inside a same
corpus. these difference could be observed throufh participants whatever
the fluence of their verbal productions.
Now I would like to systematize all these analysis. And it is with SUMO,
and with the work that some other people have presented on this list that I
found some interresting issues for elaborating this modelization.
I think I will be O.K. to find ways to modelize at mental level, but it is
silly, it is at propositional level that I have difficulties for starting
the work. I guess that I have to be careful in the way I have to choice for
starting.
Could you look at the address of the web site ?
Yours
Josiane