Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In some articles I've been reading on knowledge bases and ontologies (different things, it turns out), the authors are careful to explain the notion of the minimal ontological commitment. One of these is that a minimal ontolgy might have a concept for say, rates, but leave out the actual encodings. Thus, the rule for which rate is to be calculated might depend on local rules. This is part of the layering issue and also infers that separating the roles of schemas and ontologies is a useful thing to do. A pattern match will only tell you something about the string or encoding. It won't tell you much about the semantic unless that pattern has a prior agreement somewhere (the problem of the communicative a priori is usually solved by bootstrapping). I don't believe we "lose out" because of grammars. We have to decide the roles for each means in our systems, not eliminate means. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@h...] In Linda, one system or program inserts a tuple into the shared tuple space. That's what I meant by "puts out". Yes, you might match a pattern, but depending on the field contents the match could be by running a query and inserting the results. Suppose I ask for the interest rate and I meant a simple rate, but you return the yearly compounded rate instead because "interest_rate" was requested and you could supply one. I know that's simplistic, I'm just trying to boil things down to simplicity. Cheers, Tom P
|
