[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Semantic Representation of Lojban
I'd like to ellaborate a little more on this, because the link I
provided has a low information content. I need to solve problems
like this:
Nonviolent Communication[1] has a four-part communication model
called OFNR[2]. In it, you state your observation, your feeling,
your need, and (optionally) a request.
This turns out to be difficult, because we constantly mix
observations and feelings, state judgements as if they were
feelings, &c. It is something that takes practice to do well.
I want to be able to classify a Lojban statement based on a
constraint, like this:
Does statement X consist of an observation, then a feeling, then
a need, and then optionally a request.
The idea being that one can type in what *seems* like an OFNR
statement, and have the computer call you on it if it isn't.
The above is actually quite complex, compared to the first version
of what I want to do, which is to have a conversation with ~20 valsi
and a finite state machine with something like that many states, and
use a simple version of the above classifier as to control state
transition. The classifier won't need to handle anything outside
the scope of those ~20 valsi, save to transition to a "maybe you
ought to write that piece you clever monkey" state.
I hope that demonstrates that I don't need a formal solution to the
problem, but that I need something *like* a solution to the problem,
and I hope that gives a better idea of the kind of thing I have in
mind, as I'm working on and interested in this topic.
-Alan
1: http://www.cnvc.org/
2: http://en.nvcwiki.com/index.php/Four_part_model
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:11:07PM -0700, .alyn.post. wrote:
> By "playing with it," I mean specifically that I have an application
> in mind[1] and will be doing the minimum amount of work in this
> domain to support that application, with my goal being to develop
> and deliver the application, rather than a formal solution to this
> problem.
>
> The initial version of the application requires only a pathetically
> bad approximation to this problem, and so I will be able to use the
> result in well under a few thousand man-hours.
>
> -Alan
>
> 1: http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/kiksispehi
>
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:01:56PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> > As a practical matter, the first (and officially easiest -- but time will tell)
> > part would be to devise the rules for working back from Lojban surface
> > structures to the underlying predicate logic ones: all logical connectives
> > between sentences, all quantifiers and negations in appropriate prenex position
> > (so the structure that immediate follows -- a sentence of some sort -- will be
> > exactly the intended scope). You might also start a bunch of meaning
> > postulates, that relate one concept to others (I suppose, at least initially.
> > that the metalanguage will be English) and throw in the laws of logic just in
> > case (but they are probably going to be needed early on anyhow, to sort out
> > issues in prenectification). That ought to be worth a few thousand man-hours.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: .alyn.post. <alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org>
> > To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:45:34 PM
> > Subject: [lojban] Semantic Representation of Lojban
> >
> > [I've moved this to it's own thread for higher visibility of the
> > topic.]
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:38:23PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > Well, to a certain extent you're right, but if you choose the
> > > > right kind of semantic representation, you can do things like
> > > > proving that two different strings of Lojban have the same
> > > > meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the moment no machine
> > > > grammar of Lojban represents the fact that “mi viska do” is
> > > > equivalent to “do se viska mi”.
> > >
> > > Right, very true. People have started playing with that.
> > >
> >
> > I've started playing with it, certainly. Enough to where I'm
> > considering flying out to Penguicon to brainstorm and talk about
> > it with other Lojbanists.
> >
> > If others of you are working on it and are able and interested in
> > meeting about it, will you speak up?
> >
> > -Alan
> > --
> > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "lojban" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> >
>
> --
> .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.