On 10/01/2008, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Processing a dictionary in a useful way
requires quite sophisticated language understanding ability, though.
Once you can do that, the hard part of the problem is already
solved ;-)
While this kind of system requires sophisticated
I'll be a lot more interested when people start creating NLP systems
that are syntactically and semantically processing statements about
words, sentences and other linguistic structures and adding syntactic
and semantic rules based on those sentences.
Depending on exactly what you mean by
Ben asked:
What is the semantics of
?on-situation-localized-14 rdf:type texai:On-SituationLocalized
On-SituationLocalized is a term I created for this use case, while postponing
its associated definitional assertions. What I have in mind is that
On-SituationLocalized is a specialization
On Jan 10, 2008 9:59 AM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and that the system is to learn constructions for your examples. The below
dialog is Controlled English, in which the system understands and generates
constrained syntax and vocabulary.
[user] The elements of a shit-list can be
- Original Message
From: Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 4:04:58 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Incremental Fluid Construction Grammar released
And how would a young child or foreigner interpret on the Washington
Monument or
On 10/01/2008, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be a lot more interested when people start creating NLP systems
that are syntactically and semantically processing statements *about*
words, sentences and other linguistic structures and adding syntactic
and semantic rules
A typo in my previous post:
...
Therefore, from the viewpoint of CxG, your example variations of the
on construction have their own associated semantics, and are
*NOT* necessarily covered by the rules that I developed for my sense of
on.
...
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Artificial Intelligence
Mike,
If I understand your question correctly it asks whether a non-expert
user can be guided to use Controlled English in a dialog system. In
such a system it is expected that small differences exist between the
few things that the system understands and the vast number of things
that the
Will,
Affixes are morphological constructions and my system could have rules to
handle them. I plan eventually to include such rules for combinations that are
new. However the Texai lexicon will explicitly represent all common word forms
and multi-word phrases that would otherwise be covered
On Jan 10, 2008 10:26 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be a lot more interested when people start creating NLP systems
that are syntactically and semantically processing statements *about*
words, sentences and
Hi,
Yes, the Texai implementation of Incremental Fluid Construction Grammar
follows the phrase structure approach in which leaf lexical constituents are
grouped into a structure (i.e. construction) hierarchy. Yet, because it is
incremental and thus cognitively plausible, it should scale to
Granted that from a logical viewpoint, using a controlled English syntax to
acquire rules is as much work as explicitly encoding the rules. However, a
suitable, engaging, bootstrap dialog system may permit a multitude of
non-expert users to add the rules, thus dramatically reducing the amount
Do you plan to pay these non-experts, or recruit them as volunteers?
ben
On Jan 10, 2008 1:11 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Granted that from a logical viewpoint, using a controlled English syntax to
acquire rules is as much work as explicitly encoding the rules. However, a
Ben,
I want to engage them as volunteers. The OpenMind project is a good example.
Another is the game that Cycorp built: http://game.cyc.com . The bootstrap
dialog system will operate using Jabber, a standard chat protocol (e.g. Google
Chat), so it should easily scale and deploy to the
On Jan 10, 2008 10:57 AM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I understand your question correctly it asks whether a non-expert
user can be guided to use Controlled English in a dialog system. In
This is an idea that I wanted to try at Cycorp but Doug Lenat
said that it had been tried
Mike,
I'm beginning now to tear out my previous naive construction grammar code and
plug in incremental FCG. When that is finished, maybe by month end, I'll begin
tediously hand-crafting the constructions, and procedures, to support minimal
dialog. Then I'll get the dialog system interfaced
On 10/01/2008, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 10:26 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be a lot more interested when people start creating NLP systems
that are syntactically and
I am very interested in parsing the constructions used in WordNet and
Wiktionary glosses (i.e. definitions). Here are some samples from WordNet
online http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn . The glosses are
parenthesized, and examples are in italics for those of you with rich text
email
All this discussion of building a grammar seems to ignore the obvious fact
that in humans, language learning is a continuous process that does not
require any explicit encoding of rules. I think either your model should
learn this way, or you need to explain why your model would be more
On Jan 10, 2008 10:03 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this discussion of building a grammar seems to ignore the obvious fact
that in humans, language learning is a continuous process that does not
require any explicit encoding of rules. I think either your model should
learn
Matt,
I agree with Ben. Tomassello's book Constructing a Language, A Usage-Based
Theory of Language Acquisition argues that young children develop the skill to
discern the intentional actions of others. Construction Grammar (CxG) is a
simple pairing of form and meaning. According to this
21 matches
Mail list logo
