RE: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
Do you need grammatical rules as below for an NLP-AI System? What about
just using tables of norms giving appropriate verbal responses for
different circumstances or questions?
FWP/POC
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Chris Lofting wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> > John F. Sowa
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2002 2:46
> > To: Bill Andersen
> > Cc: cg@cs.uah.edu; SUO
> > Subject: Re: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
> >
> <snip>
> > BA> Step up to the plate and write the code, and we'll see if it works.
> >
> > The two talks I mentioned discussed a lot of code that has already been
> > written that does many of the necessary tasks:
> >
> > http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/negotiat.htm
> >
> > http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/autotalk.htm
> >
>
> from the above links:
>
> "Consider the verb support in the following sentences:
> Tom supported the tomato plant with a stick.
> Tom supported his daughter with $10,000 per year.
> Tom supported his father with a decisive argument.
> Tom supported his partner with a bid of 3 spades.
> These sentences all use the verb support in the same syntactic pattern:
> A person supported NP1 with NP2."
>
> Neurcognitive processes are biased to the GENERAL notions of WHAT and WHERE
> (object/relationship). These are particularisable to:
>
> WHAT - WHO - WHICH
> WHERE - WHEN - HOW
>
> (WHY more often deals with values and as such comes 'later' in development
> although it gets confused at times with being synonymous with HOW)
>
> Thus all of the sentences above 'fit' at the GENERAL level:
>
> [WHAT|WHO|WHICH] TOM
> [WHEN|WHERE|HOW] SUPPORTED
> [WHAT|WHO|WHICH]{tomato}{daughter}{father}{partner}
> [WHEN|WHERE|HOW]WITH
> [WHAT|WHO|WHICH]{a stick}{10000}{decisive arguement}{3spades}
>
> Note the interdigitation of objects|relationships|objects|relationships etc
> This reflects the interdigitations across the brain of left/right fields etc
> and especially the interdigitations in the frontal lobes (and so
> left|right|left|right connections of neurons from different hemispheres via
> the corpus callosum etc etc) also note the ability for reversals (the verb
> 'to TOM' can be derived easily by conversion of WHAT to WHERE etc) as can
> tomato - tomatoed, daughter - daughtered, father - fathered, partner -
> partnered, stick - sticked....IOW CONTEXT allows for the elements of A/NOT-A
> to swap)
>
> Non-transitives are in the form of [WHAT|WHO|WHICH][WHERE|WHEN|HOW] as in
> "Tom slept" and to these basics you add qualifiers ("Ugly Tom slept
> peacfully") (that said you could focus on the deeds and say
> [WHAT|WHO|WHICH][WHAT|WHO|WHICH] for "Tom slept" where the expression
> 'slept' is treated as expression of an object, a 'thing'...but more so there
> is an implicit 'did' present:
>
> [WHAT|WHO|WHICH]{did}[WHERE|WHEN|HOW] etc. such that we have in the above
> TOM DID SUPPORT...or TOM DID SLEEP...)
>
> The DICHOTOMY of what/where applied recursively allows for whats to look
> like wheres and wheres to look like whats - a continuum of qualities emerges
> from which to choose a category.
>
> Local nuances in language can shift order - thus in German the
> [WHERE|WHEN|HOW] are grouped at the end of sentences reflecting a grosser
> chunking size of object|relationship and the relationships need distribution
> to get 'meaning'. In French/Italian there is a play on adjective orders (the
> qualifiers). In Japanese also the 'heads' change and there is an emphasis on
> more implicit terms e.g. 'daughter' implies *his* daughter (Toms) unless
> stated otherwise etc All of these languages have developed from trial and
> error. We dont need these nuances for AI to AI communications.
>
> Overall the focus is on objects|relationships, WHAT and WHERE, and the
> application of that dichotomy recursively to give the GENERAL notions of
> WHAT mapped to objects as WHOLES or PARTS and WHERE mapped to relationships
> as STATIC or DYNAMIC. ALL LANGUAGE HAS DEVELOPED FROM THESE PRIMITIVES and
> these primitives can be shown to be sourced in the neurocognitive processes.
>
> Understanding the manner in which the mindless brain processes
> objects|relationships indicates the general level of information processing
> upon which all else is founded. IOW you could develop a language for AI
> systems that has nothing to do with English or Latin or Greek or Chinese etc
> etc etc as long as it deals with objects|relationships; why copy the brain?
> why 'localise' AI language? just copy the methodologies - the brain has
> spent x million years 'mindlessly' developing - we can do it quicker since
> we are, to some degree, mindful.
>
> In our own species, if allowed, each generation would create its own
> language - so to then AI systems. Feed them the basics and let it 'evolve'.
> regardless of the manner of expression they will all talk 'objects and
> relationships' where and object is anything I can use as 'WHAT' and a
> relationship anything I can use as 'WHERE'. CONTEXT will determine what
> becomes preferred as a 'what' and preferred as a 'where'; the general
> what:where template allows for both (and even oscillations where we deal
> with paradox.)
>
> The neurocognitive research means we need to review such concepts as
> transformational grammar etc
>
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> Lists:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus
>
>