[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>,Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:20:39 -0600
In some articles I've been reading on knowledge bases
and ontologies (different things, it turns out), the
authors are careful to explain the notion of the
minimal ontological commitment. One of these is that
a minimal ontolgy might have a concept for say,
rates, but leave out the actual encodings. Thus,
the rule for which rate is to be calculated might
depend on local rules. This is part of the layering
issue and also infers that separating the roles of
schemas and ontologies is a useful thing to do.
A pattern match will only tell you something
about the string or encoding. It won't tell
you much about the semantic unless that pattern
has a prior agreement somewhere (the problem
of the communicative a priori is usually
solved by bootstrapping). I don't believe
we "lose out" because of grammars. We have
to decide the roles for each means in our
systems, not eliminate means.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:email@example.com]
In Linda, one system or program inserts a tuple into the shared tuple space.
That's what I meant by "puts out".
Yes, you might match a pattern, but depending on the field contents the
could be by running a query and inserting the results. Suppose I ask for
interest rate and I meant a simple rate, but you return the yearly
rate instead because "interest_rate" was requested and you could supply one.
I know that's simplistic, I'm just trying to boil things down to simplicity.