On Nov 12, 2007 6:56 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It will happily include "irrelevant" facts > > Which immediately makes it *not* relevant to my point. > > Please read my e-mails more carefully before you hop on with ignorant > flames. The latter part of your e-mail clearly makes my point -- anyone > claiming to be able to do a sophisticated version of this in the next year > is spouting plain, unadulterated BS.
Mark, I really wasn't spouting BS. I imagine what you are conceiving when you use the label of "sophisticated" is more sophisticated than what I am hoping to launch within the next year. Being "sophisticated" is not a precise criterion. Your example of giving information about horses in a contextual way ** How do you know what is irrelevant? How much do your answers differ between a small farmer in New Zealand, a rodeo rider in the West, a veterinarian is Pennsylvania, a child in Washington, a bio-mechanician studying gait? ** is in my judgment not beyond what a well-architected statistical-NLP-based information-retrieval system could deliver. I don't think you even need a Novamente system to do this. So is this all you mean by "sophisticated"? I don't really understand what you intend... seriously... -- Ben ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=64396128-6677a0
