[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CE RE: MRE Starter grammar
Adam,
. I hope you got a more comprehensible structure of what I
sent than what's below. If that's what you got, I can try reformatting it
another way to make the structural hierarchy more evident.
. I am calling it MRE, because I believe that title is more
precise. I am happy for people to correct me if I am in error, or to provide
an even more precise and succinct label, but I believe it is more than just
controlled. Also, one participant earlier felt "controlled" implied users
were being restricted in what they wanted to say, rather than just how they
can express it.
. Further comments interspersed below, prefaced "GH> ".
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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 2:11 AM
To: Horn, Graham; suo-ce@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CE Starter grammar
Graham,
I have two concerns
1. It is often not possible to determine the purpose of an utterance
from its surface structure, and in isolation. I think it will be important
to keep the distinctions among syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
GH> While I agree natural language doesn't avoid ambiguities, I suggest
we manage the various types of ambiguities as we encounter them. I think we
will be able to eliminate most of them by developing a few syntactic rules
forbidding certain constructions. IIrc, ACE has just such rules.
GH> I agree we should keep the distinctions among syntax, semantics and
pragmatics. I don't quite know what structure you are referring to here.
GH> Actually, I suspect I will end up wanting additional structural
distinctions than just the ones you mention. That's because I suspect some
of the ones I will want will implicitly reflect structures required to be
explicitly stated in KIF. Naturally we will have to explicitly declare the
meaning of any such implicit structures.
2. "process" is likewise an ontological issue rather than a syntactic
one.
GH> I don't mind if the label I dubbed "process" is changed, so long as
the structure and functionality is precise. I think the structure I am
referring to is really "process word group", which is different to
"process". Nevertheless, it is also different to "verb". Perhaps you can
suggest better labels. I mainly care about getting the structure right, tho'
I believe the labels should not be ambiguous or confusing, and would prefer
they not be clumsy.
I think these labels are fine so long as we acknowledge that they could only
be added either explicitly by the source of the utterance, or at a stage of
processing following syntactic parsing.
Adam
At 04:04 PM 6/1/2001 +1000, Horn, Graham wrote:
>Folks,
> . May I suggest each line of a diagrammatic figure be
started
>with a dot, so as to minimise format obliteration by e-mail & firewall
>systems. I also suggest Courier font for them, to utilise the constant
>character width of that font. Please note the number of leading dots in the
>hierarchical indented structures below, in case the indenting is stripped
>out .
>
> . I also feel we will need a symbology that indicates
>optionality of elements and structures.
>
> . I had a go at some simple augmentations to this, but there
>are many aspects, of course, to consider. I feel we will rapidly need to
>expand the paradigm.
>
> . May I suggest we classify sentences , such as:
>* purpose:
>* . statement
>* . query
>* . command
>* complexity:
>* . simple - only one independent clause
>* . compound - more than one independent clauses only
>* . complex -also has one or more dependant clauses
>
> . I also suggest we break them down into subject, process,
and
>possibly indirect object and/or direct object.
>
> . Doubtless I sound like an old school master, but I
strongly
>suspect we will rapidly require most of the basic traditional grammar
>elements. Hence I suggest the following enlarged and hierarchical list:
>
>* LP = label phrase, of type:
>* U = subject,
>* I = indirect object, and
>* B = direct object; comprising:
>* . L = label
>* .. N = noun
>* .. PN = proper noun
>* .. R = pronoun
>o ... QR = query pronoun [who|what|which]
>o ... (there are other types of pronoun)
>* .. Q = qualifier
>o ... J = adjective
>- .... DJ = determining adjective [the|a|an|all|every]
>o .. JP = adjectival phrase (E + NP, eg: "with the tag")
>o ... JC = adjectival clause (form of simple sentence, but not
>semantically complete, and introduced by a subordinating conjunction, eg:
>"which he wore")
>* P = process
>* . PP = process phrase
>* .. V = verb (finite)
>* .. AV = auxiliary verb [
>* .. PV = participle verb [
>* .. M = modifier
>o ... A = adverb
>o ... QA = query adverb [how|what|where]
>o ... AP = adverbial phrase (E + NP, eg: "along the wide road")
>o ... AC = adjectival clause (form of simple sentence, but not
>semantically complete, and introduced by a subordinating conjunction, eg:
>"when they arrived")
>* E = preposition [like|as|...|etc.]
>* C = coordinating conjunction [and|but|or|...|etc.]
>* S = subordinating conjunction [which|how|what|...|etc.]
>
> . I'm afraid I can't see any way of avoiding this level of
>complexity. Fortunately the paradigm is well proven over thousands of
years.
>
>
> . For our purposes, we get a large task very early on, but
we
>can take it incrementally by analysing and specifying each type of
sentence,
>starting form the simplest, one at a time.
>
> . I am using square brackets to indicate optionality below.
I
>have also not required optionality to be indicated below the level at which
>it occurs.
>
> . By the way, I am not wedded to the above symbols - they
were
>just drawn off the top of my head. We will probably have to assign roles to
>various characters, so as to make the meaning unambiguous.
>
> . Now let's have a go at the simplest generic structure.
>. simple statement
>. / | \ \
>. U P [I] [B]
>. / | \/
>. LP PP LP
>. / \ / \ / \
>. [Q] L P M [Q] L
>
> . Suggestions, comments, corrections, criticisms welcome.
>
>
>
>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>
<mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au> >
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
<mailto:[mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]>
>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 12:15 PM
>To: suo-ce@ieee.org <mailto: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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571