======================================
Interlingua como un nomine commun - II
======================================
[ APPENDIX 3 ]
Metalanguage and Higher-order language
[log in to unmask]
Fritz, When Tom Gruber, Mike Genesereth, and I have been advocating a
first-order approach, we have always insisted on FOL plus arbitrarily
many metalevels. That point is that the metalanguage gives you the
ability to define axiom schemata, lambda conversion, and all such things
within a logic that still has first-order style models.
That logic also gives you the ability to define all of Peano's axioms,
** Allan Kiviaho: Es iste Peano "nostre Peano sin **
** flexione? Io crede que iste es ille. **
including the axiom of induction, which is the only one that goes beyond
a purely first-order framework.
...
As far as I can see from that HOL book that I suggested, they are not
using "true" higher-order logic, but rather a first-order logic plus
metalevels -- very much the same kind of thing that we are recommending
for KIF and CGs. So their HOL is the same as what we were calling FOL.
As far as I know, I can't think of any possible application of KIF or
CGs to computer science or linguistics that would require anything
beyond FOL plus metalevels.
...
----------------------------------------------------------
EMail Msg <[log in to unmask]>
ANSI X3H4 standards for information interchange. [log in to unmask]
Mail folder: Interlingua Mail. Next message: [log in to unmask]: "ANSI
X3H4...
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/email-archives/interlingua.messsages/94..html
- size
3K - 16 May 94
----------------------------------------------------------
Document Translation
InterLingua is known for the translation of documents that have highly
precise language requirements-such as patents, legal documents-as well
as a need...
http://www.sierra-inc.com/interlingua/docs/trans.html - size 4K - 10 Feb
97
----------------------------------------------------------
EMail Msg <[log in to unmask]>
alternative interlingua. [log in to unmask] (Peter F.
Patel-Schneider) Mail folder: Interlingua Mail. Next message: Danny
Bobrow: "Re:...
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/email-archives/interlingua.messsages/39..html
- size 2K - 16 May 94
----------------------------------------------------------
EMail Msg <[log in to unmask]>
Proposal about logical syntax for Interlingua. John McCarthy
<[log in to unmask]> Mail folder: Interlingua Mail. Next
message:...
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/email-archives/interlingua.messsages/83..html
- size 5K - 16 May 94
----------------------------------------------------------
EMail Msg <2859304847-15925329@KSL-Mac-69>
Re: alternative interlingua
Tom Gruber <[log in to unmask]>
Ÿ Mail folder: Interlingua Mail
Ÿ Next message: Robert MacGregor: "sharing knowledge"
Ÿ Previous message: R. V. Guha: "alternative interlingua"
Ÿ In-reply-to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "alternative interlingua"
Message-id: <2859304847-15925329@KSL-Mac-69>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 12:20:47 PDT
From: Tom Gruber <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: alternative interlingua
In-reply-to: Msg of Fri, 10 Aug 90 13:24:49 EDT from
[log in to unmask] (Peter F. Patel-Schneider)
Maybe the problem in defining an interlingua for sharing knowledge bases
is hung on the ambiguity of "sharable knowledge". We have gotten
comfortable with talking about the non-programming-language part of our
programs as "knowledge bases", even when they often are statements in a
very high level programming language. Remember the talk about sharing
OPS5 rule bases? They are no more shareable than an arbitrary Lisp
program, although OPS5 and Lisp programs presumably can encode
knowledge. Consider the case closer to home:
...
The problem is that I don't see any way of sharing knowledge encoded in
the formalism of forward-chaining rules without sharing the interpreter.
...
Since the interlingua approach is based on the assumption
that we needn't share interpreters, then we need to face up to the fact
that some "knowledge" is in easily sharable form and some is not. The
interlingua can not substitute for the transformations required to tease
out shareable knowledge. The interlingua as currently described is
based on the strategy that knowledge stated in "declarative form" (inthe
logicist sense) is potentially shareable. We all know the tradeoffs
encountered when trying to be fully declarative and getting the job
done.
Descriptions of the structure of physical devices can be
made shareable, even though there are many ways to describe their
structure and the various models may be motivated by different
information needs. Statements like (point p22), (point p23),
(coincident p22 p23), (rigid-body rb13), ... can be shared if the
sharing parties agree on the referents of names such as "point".
Statements like "if you want a highly reliable electrical connection,
then use gold-plated connectors" clearly isn't in a shareable form.
Of course, shareablility doesn't guarantee usefullness.
It may be that the fraction of our current KBs that are shareable is
very low. That may be due to our current development environments,
rather than something inherent in the world. A properly designed
interlingua should
make it useful in the future to encode shareable knowledge
and reuse other's knowledge. The interlingua should create the market
where trade in shareable knowledge is mutually benefial.
Thus I argue that the requirement that one should be able
to encode all the information in one's CURRENT favorite knowledge base
in the interlingua and guarantee that it ALL be useable by someone else,
may be broken. It should be reformulated as the requirement that one
should be
able to encode all potentially shareable knowledge in the
interlingua, using the extension mechanism to say things that may not be
computationally useful today. In the current interlingua, potentially
shareable = can be put in "declarative" (interpreter independent) form,
which amount to statements with no *computational* or *operational*
semantics. (Note: if Brian Smith is right, there is no
such knowledge in our knowledge bases.) The extension mechanism lets us
encapsulate things with semantics dependendent on an interpreter,
anticipating the
technology that would allow us to make use of some of it.
[ APPENDIX 4 ]
Radiology Interlingua: Knowledge Sharing and Reusing Initiative
Robert T. Macura, M.D., Ph.D.
Katarzyna J. Macura, M.D., Ph.D.
Medical Informatics Section | Department of Radiology | Medical College
of Georgia
Purpose
The goal of our research is to build a radiology interlingua, public
domain electronic vocabulary, that will allow communications and
translations among ever growing number of teaching and diagnosis support
systems developed in the U.S.A. and worldwide.
Results
The prototype version of ERV for neuroradiology consists of 800
hierarchically structured indices with definitions and exemplary images.
ERV is used to semi-automatically code free-text radiological reports
into the electronic case library that is used as a teaching and
diagnosis support aid.
Conclusions
It is important for the radiology community to have a uniform and
comprehensive approach to represent medical information. Providing a
public domain software for coding is a first step toward knowledge
sharing and reusing in radiology. The benefits from the use of ERV are:
structured data entry, controlled data retrieval, medium for sharing of
content among different systems, standards for encoding radiology data
and knowledge.
Please direct comments and questions to Dr. Robert T. Macura
[log in to unmask]
Copyright © 1996 Medical College of Georgia
Last Updated: March 15, 1996
Amicalmente
Allan Kiviaho
Finlandia
|
