Probably offtopic - while I am reading about OpenCog community efforts in NLP, I am quite suspicious about statistical methods. I think that the only meaningful approach to the NLP ir the combinatory categorial grammars (Lambek calculus, Montague semantics) and this effort tries to translate natural language sentences into logical expressions - lambda calculus expressions. So - if there is connection between Schema as a language of lambda calculus, then CCGs are the way of translating NL sentences directly into Scheme structures. Besides CCGs approach uses white box approach and understanding for the semantics of natural language, these semantical knowledge can also be encoded as the Scheme/OpenCog structures and can be learned of enhanced by time.
Of course, raw statistical approach in the end can give the same results, but structured approach can be more feasible. Besides - statistical approach yields results that are worth all or nothing. But CCG approach yields results that are improving step by step and such improving understanding reflects the human approach to the world and language - humans progresively learns language, its syntax and semantics. I we have the slightest doubts about existence of the perfect understanding of the language then we should also must have doubts about efficiency of the statistical approach. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/393b88c8-aadd-456c-bd84-eaac92b55fd8%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
