On Jan 11, 2008 12:04 AM, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Secondly, I'm not buying that it is any more complex than dealing with > other domains. You easily get equal complexity dealing with > non-linguistic stuff such as > > This is a battery > A battery can be part of a machine > Putting a battery in the battery holder, gives the machine power > > Is as complex, if not more so, than > > un- is a prefix > A prefix is the front part of a word > Adding un- to a, "word," is equivalent to saying, "not word." > > What the system does after processing these different sets of > sentences is vastly different. A difference worth exploring before > settling on an architecture, IMO. >
William, What do you mean by difference in processing here? I think that both instructions can be perceived by AI in the same manner, using the same kind of internal representations, if IO is implemented on sufficiently low level, for example as a stream of letters (or even their binary codes). This way knowledge about spelling and syntax can work with low-level concepts influencing little chunks of IO perception and generation, and 'more semantic' knowledge can work with more high-level aspects. It's less convenient for quick dialog system setup or knowledge extraction from text corpus, but it should provide flexibility. Arguably custom low-level IO control can be provided later, hooked into more high-level structures already set up using existing front-end, with original IO acting as syntactic sugar for direct knowledge base specification, but I'm not sure it's as useful as it can seem to be. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=84527412-4c4c30
