Re: SUO: Try coding protocols
Hi John,
Thank you for your help. I think that theoretically it is good. But at the
same time I tried to account for some more properties which are important
at the level of problem solving:
- first the fact that there are different way for naming disks, colors of
course, but also sometimes they are named by the peg (example 'the A',
where A is Peg-A) there they are before to be moved or the peg where they
have to be moved.
I answer myself to this question: it would be possible to consider
(p : object :lex disk
: position-property-ascription (c / position-quality : origin peg)
but here I am not quite familiar with your notations and systems: my
difficulty is that peg can be named in different way, and of course it can
be instanced at physical level by anyone of the three pegs
And of course these different denominations implies subtil differences in
the way in which the representation (and also rules, automatizations,
contexts,...) are being constructed. And here we reach to the invariant
elements of the problem space.
I tried to code 'the diskb' as lex for the object peg, in this
example below. But here there is a litle problem for the coordination of
notation (capital or small letters)
example: I take the pink disc I put it on the disc b #2 1 -
(4 3 2 ) (1) ( )
4321 0 0 ----> 432 1 0
(instance Person1 Human)
(instance Take1 Removing)
(instance Put1 Putting)
/ (destination Put1 Peg)
/ (instance Peg-B Peg)
/ (p / object :lex peg
:disk-position-ascription (c / disk-quality :lex disk
c / position-quality : peg-B
c / position-quality :lex B
c / disk-position-quality :lex disk-B
:identifiability-q identifiable)
But I do not know if it is sufficient to account of the fact that the disk
which gives name to the peg is the disk which is moved.
For the color, another problem is that often one can find 'the
pink yellow disk' (in french 'le disque jaune rose'), while the pinkyellow
disk is not a physical one, but a mantal disk emergent from the relations
between the pink disk and the yellow disk.
For the history, with the problem of chenese rings where there are a blue
ring and a yellow, I have found 'the blue and yellow ring' (l'anneau bleu
et jaune') in verbal reports of adults.
How tu account of that in this case ?
- Another property I want to have the possibility to report the fact that
in the example below
I take the pink disk I put it on the yellow disk
4 3 21 6-----> 4 31 2
(the disk is transfered from peg-C to peg-B)
In this case, the peg-B is named by the name of the disk 3 ('the yellow
disk) which is already on it before the move
How to give account of this property ?
At 08:57 24/08/01 +0200, vous avez écrit:
>Hallo Josiane Caron,
>
>wrt:
>
> > Moreover I would have like to code the formulation of the disk and
> > of the peg:
> > In example 1: 'the pink disk'
> > you have introduced the notion of attribute, but if I use this form I find
> > it is not right. It 'll give us 'the pink disk1' instead of ' the pink
> disk'
> > In fact I need to know both concept and the occurrence of the concept
> (type
> > and occurrence). I proposed a re-writing for sentence 1, below (I left
> > sentences 2 and 4 wirth your writing). But the problem is I need some
> > different formulation for 'instance'; I wrote something by introducing the
> > word 'naming'; what can I do ?
> > In the same sentence I encounter the same problem with the denomination
> > 'diskb' for the 'peg B'
> > (I put a line / in example 1 below before the line I have changed)
It is fine
> > Furthermore there are the problems of connectives in 3 and 4.
I am not afraid with connectives: my husband Jean caron (and me also) has
studied a lot connectives. But I agree that in a first time I like to
consider them as a relation. In a second time it would be useful to give
the invariant contextual dimensions by which connectives are differenciated
in the protocols (that is my personal work). If the first level of coding
is good, it is not so hard.
And modals , not so easy! (one will see later)
>I am struck and intrigued by the similarity that your questions have with
>those that
>those of us in Natural Language Generation are concerned with all the
>time: i.e., how to express these pesky natural language differences
>in some kind of semantics so that our generators can produce the
>sentences that we start with.
yes of course. I am doing an enunciative verbal analysis of thinking aloud
verbal reports producted during a problem solving: the well-know problem
of tower of Hanoï ( 4 colored disks)
I would like to give you the reference of all examples and try of
modelization I have already sent on this list. But I do not yet know how to
find them. perhaps someone else could help ? If not I can try to repict
every necessary information for you.
>The added interest of trying to make this work with someone else's
>ontology is also very relevant to the NLG area.
I hope that Adam, Ian, Robert and others, and you continue to help. I think
I need to work with ontologies in order to clarify all the concepts and
properties and also notations underlying my analysis.
>Considering all the work that has to go into producing something even
>as simple as "the pink disk" (e.g., decision about definiteness, decision
>about attribution of the entity to a category/class (disk), decision
>about the granularity of the description of the category/class (disk,
>object, whatever... I am not sure what these disks are!), decision
>about granularity of the attribution, decision about which
>attributes need to be expressed at all in order to differentiate the
>current object from other potential "distractors"), I am left wondering
>just how much of that falls within what an ontology has to come
>up with. The question becomes even more problematic when moving
>to discourse connectives (also an area with a long history in NLG).
>Our input expression for "the pink disk" would be something like:
>
> (p / object :lex disk
> :color-property-ascription (c / color-quality :lex pink)
> :identifiability-q identifiable)
>
>p and c are the instance variables; object and color-quality are ontology
>"concepts", color-property-ascription is an ontology relation; and
>identifiability has nothing to do with an ontology but is an appeal
>to the dynamic text production process and text model. Lex says
>what words I want to use for the concepts. If I throw
>this semantics at our English generator it spits back "the pink disk".
>The relation between the ontology concepts used in NLG
>(in our case drawn from the
>merged or generalized upper model: http://purl.org/net/gum2) and
>standardizations attempts such as SUMO is of great interest
>and one of the reasons why I read these lists!)
>
>Is this at all relevant to you? -- are you familiar with it?
I am familiar with these notions except 'granularity of the attribution'.
But if you explain it to me, perhaps I know but with another terminology.
Sincerely yours
Josiane
_________________________________________________
Josiane Caron-Pargue
Laboratoire Langage et Cognition LaCo, UMR 6096
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société, MSHS
99 Avenue du Recteur Pineau, F-86022 Poitiers cedex
tel bur 05 49 45 46 23, fax 05 49 45 46 16
tel secr. 05 49 45 46 10, 05 49 45 46 13
http://www.mshs.univ-poitiers.fr/laco/
josiane.caron@mshs.univ-poitiers.fr
_________________________________________________