On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:07:32AM -0400, Obrst, Leo wrote:
> Good pointers, Chris. But it depends on what is meant by needing "to
> change during the course of reasoning". That could suggest on the fly
> automated kr learning, which I don't think anyone can handle yet. A
> language such as CL would be the best and most expressive for adaptive
> representation, but still require some update period between reasoning
> cycles -- at least until we have fairly robust natural language
> understanding by computer and extremely elaborate context mechanisms
> (pragmatics), and of course a large world model/s, I.e. Ontologies and
> epistemologies.
> I'll withhold other comments until I read the paper, but I'm highly
> suspicious of such extravagant statements as Bundy's. (01)
Point taken, Leo. Catherine's reference to changing arities inspired me
to advertise some of CL's notable virtues. I do believe that CL is
ideal for "adaptive representation", as you put it, notably the fact
that many predicates can occur with varying numbers of arguments (e.g.,
"eats") in different ontologies (or even the same ontology). But I
should have noted that I actually have no idea whether CL would be
useful *specifically* to the program of Bundy et al. (02)
-chris (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (04)
|