[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: CE Starter grammar




fine.

Regards  
      Matthew
===============================================================
Matthew West                    http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
=============================================================== 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> Sent: 01 June 2001 09:32
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK; 'Adam Pease'; suo-ce@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: CE Starter grammar
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Matthew, 
> 	.		I don't know whether you're right or not.  
> 
> 	.	I presume you got my earlier e-mail augmenting 
> the structure
> Adam initiated. 
> 
> 	.	I believe it would pay to use the power of the 
> traditional
> Gręco­Roman­based grammar rules that have had literally 
> thousands of years
> of evolution. 
> 
> 	.	Once one has a sound structure, by all means restrict it
> down to a smaller sub-set. But if one doesn't get the 
> structure right to
> start with, one will end up with something others will be 
> able to use as
> evidence that "something like ACE can't possibly work". I'm 
> sure you recall
> the many e-mails along that line I copped earlier on. 
> 
> 	.	I remain absolutely adamant that for a modified 
> restricted
> version of a natural language one MUST have a totally 
> consistent grammatical
> and semantic structure. That's why I feel there is value in 
> taking Adam's
> line at this initial stage. 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers   				Graham Horn
> National Data Standards Unit
> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
> ================================================
> Phone:      	+61.2.6244.1094  
> Fax:          	+61.2.6244.1199  
> E­mail:    	Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK 
> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> Sent:	Friday, June 01, 2001 6:12 PM
> To:	'Adam Pease'; suo-ce@ieee.org
> Subject:	RE: CE Starter grammar
> 
> 
> Dear Adam,
> 
> I think you are starting at the wrong end of the problem. We only 
> want to say those things that can be said in KIF, but we want them 
> to be easily understood by a consistent translation to/from English.
> So it would be better ot start from teh KIF end (much more 
> restricted) and identify English forms for what can be said. This
> would probably give a more restricted grammar than you have 
> proposed.
> 
> Regards  
>       Matthew
> ===============================================================
> Matthew West                    http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> 
> Principal Consultant                   Shell Visiting Professor
> Operations & Asset Management            The Keyworth Institute
> Shell Services International            The University of Leeds
> http://www.shellservices.com/  http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> 
> H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
> Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> =============================================================== 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 01 June 2001 03:15
> > To: suo-ce@ieee.org
> > Subject: CE Starter grammar
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Folks,
> >    I'll suggest the following strawman as a start on a 
> > restricted English 
> > grammar.
> > 
> >                        sentence
> >                      /         \
> >                    SNP|Q         VP
> >                   /    \      /     \
> >                 Det   N|PN    V   NP|SNP
> >                                   / | \
> >                                 Det M N|PN
> > 
> > where:
> >    SNP = simple noun phrase
> >    NP = noun phrase
> >    Det = determiner [the|a|an|all|every]
> >    N = noun
> >    V = verb
> >    VP = verb phrase
> >    PN = proper noun
> >    M = modifier
> >    Q = query word [who|what|where]
> > 
> > 
> > Adam
> > 
>