RE: SUO: ontology as science
Rich,
I don`t believe that we disagree. The method of processing
contexts must certainly be dynamic, but at any instant of time,
you can represent the current state of the dynamic stack by
a graph with a nest of contexts.
In particular, the contexts in conceptual graphs are designed
to represent the contexts of dynamically changing discourse
structures in natural languages or the dynamically changing
frames of a motion picture (which consists of a sequence of
static "snapshots").
JFS>> I am almost finished with a paper I was writing on Laws,
>> Facts, and Contexts, which is at the following URL:
>>
>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm
>>
RC> .... In my own
>programming practice, I define a context as a stack having
>as its elements a set of indexes into the current semantic
>graph. As new statements are processed, each one may add
>a few nodes to the present graph if it represents a newly
>discovered fact or inference. But if it turns out to be
>erroneously asserted, it has to be deleted later. I use
>a "Context" stack to make graph expansion and recovery
>operations faster.
That`s fine. You are describing a method of translating
statements (in some language, natural or artificial) into
a graph of contexts. That method is dynamic, but at each
step, the current graph is a static nest.
>In NLP, the multiple interpretations of a new sentence fragment
>should each be represented by separate contexts, with each
>context pushed onto the stack. When one interpretation is
>shown to be inapplicable, that context is popped off the
>Context stack, and the next possible interpretation is
>processed. If N interpretations are acceptable so far, they
>each are represented by one element on the context stack.
There are many techniques for analyzing NL sentences, and they
may use pushdown stacks or other kinds of dynamically changing
data structures. But you have to distinguish the method of
analyzing and interpreting NL from the meaning of the NL
sentence or the resulting conceptual graph.
One very important property shared by NLs and by CGs is that
every step of the dynamic process can be expressed as a well
formed statement in either NLs or CGs. As new information
comes in, the current statement might change, but it can also
be described by another statement in NL or CGs.
Everything you are describing below is fine with me, but I
don`t know what the abbreviation OOD means. Is it object-
oriented database? What does that have to do with natural
language or context or dynamic interpretation of either?
John
_______________________________________________________________
>So to me, context is a dynamic and evolving thing when using
>search or disambiguation processes.
>
>With this interpretation, the efficiency issue is how best to
>represent a graph of contexts which relate new information to
>an established (static) graph of global semantic knowledge.
>
>But the question of when to begin a new context scalloped into
>another, less specific context, and when to end each level of
>context.
>
>The reason I relate this to an OOD philosophy is that only the
>OOD people have realy addressed the issue in any depth. There
>are some useful, though not very formal, experiences that relate
>to the OOD philosophies based on analysis of current practices.
>Design is oriented toward the static scalloping of scopes,
>while testing and debugging are oriented toward the dynamic
>creation, modification, and destruction of contexts. So OOD
>only addresses design, not interpretation of contexts.
>
>Does this relate to something else you had in mind, perhaps
>using a different word than "context", to describe the formal
>aspects of this problem?