[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Marcus Carr <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:41:45 -0600
1. It is the only useful view for an engineer. See Shannon.
2. Yes. Without both rules for co-occurrence constraints and
grammar, it is expensive and tedious for systems to share states
because either alone assumes intimate knowledge of the processing
code of each and sharing a system definition to enable that is
more expensive than building and sharing the rules and grammar.
Better that than natural language descriptions because the
machine can check that. (back to the semantic web thread we go...)
Again, look at the problem of agencies pushing or pulling
data from authoritative control to authoritative control
to engage in different processes in each local system. Just
going from authoring to publication is tough within a locale,
but the real problem is going extra-net to the next locale
in a broadcast model. Consider that one may move the
same grammatical production but that in each locale,
a different rule set is applied.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:email@example.com]
1)Is this a useful view of "semantics" - that it is a means to choose
various sets of rules or perhaps syntaxes?
2) Do the systems people are envisioning need such a capability?