[lojban] Re: Semantic Representation of Lojban

[Zort <eitanp32@gmail.com>]

I just randomly discovered this: http://www.lojban.org/files/papers/lojban_parser_paper
I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it seems very relevant.

On Jan 7, 7:28 am, ".alyn.post." <alyn.p...@lodockikumazvati.org>
wrote:
> I've realized that I'll need to look at sentences like "I promise X
> [though my finger is crossed.]"[1] because of their appearing to say
> "I promise X."  And I've gotten about that far with that particular
> problem.  :-)
>
> I'm only clear on the first three steps I'll be taking to work on
> this problem, and I'm roughly planning on adding bits of logic and
> leftovers until I find something that appears to contradict some
> step I've already taken.  Or, more likely, I'm not nearly so lucky
> as that and reach a point where I don't understand what a Lojban
> statement class is formally trying to express, and need help
> translating it.
>
> I'm really happy you're interested in this stuff.  I'll be happy to
> check in when I have an interesting application, a fun example, or
> anything else thought provoking.  If you build any datasets I'd be
> happy to hear about them as well.
>
> Happy Hacking,
>
> -Alan
>
> 1:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed_fingers, though the cultural
>    referent I'm making (documented in the first paragraph) is not
>    cited!
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:49:38PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> > OK, cool.  My thought was to do the pred log first and then deal with what is
> > left over, yours is to sort out the pred log and (much of) the leftover first
> > and deal with a lot of that leftover.  We are both going to run into the problem
> > of overlap at some point, apparently factual sentences that are used to express
> > emotions and the opposite.  Until the, however, we can start with the clearly
> > marked bits of Lojban: attitudinals to express emotions, imperatives to express
> > requests, the fraught sentences with 'djica' and 'nitcu' to express/report
> > needs.  So far, this is vocab look up and a little parsing.  What comes next in
> > terms of making these classifications when they are embedded or implicit or
> > disguised?  And, of course, how much of this hinges on fairly complete word
> > semantics for various preds and compounds?  The first part won't take a thousand
> > hours (nor probably a hundred). the next part leads you into the whirlpool that
> > also involves the other approach, so step-wise mutual adapting, hopefully always
> > in an upward direction.
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: .alyn.post. <alyn.p...@lodockikumazvati.org>
> > To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 4:35:57 PM
> > Subject: 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.p...@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.
>
> > --
> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
> --
> .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.