Re: canonical ordering (Re: Converses?)
phayes@uiuc.edu (Pat Hayes)
X-Sender: phayes@casper.beckman.uiuc.edu
Message-id: <v02140b07ad7f7dd2aff5@[128.174.210.75]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:32:12 -0600
To: brayman@zuben.ca.boeing.com (Bill Brayman)
From: phayes@uiuc.edu (Pat Hayes)
Subject: Re: canonical ordering (Re: Converses?)
Cc: cg@cs.umn.edu, interlingua@isi.edu, srkb@cs.umbc.edu
Sender: owner-srkb@cs.umbc.edu
Precedence: bulk
>> CanTalkLongerThanInThePresenceOf(x,y,z,u)
>> between four people (a speaker, an addresee and an audience of two). Which
>> is which?
>
>why do I feel like I am walking into a trap when I raise the typing issue
>again...but anyway
>in ordinary language we often mark sentence components to indicate the
>role the element is playing such as(using Pat's example):
>
>CanTalkLongerThanInThePresenceOf((speaker(x),addressee(y),audience(z),audie
>nce(u))
>
>So, to suggest a line of reasoning for Pat's question, his relation
>C(x,y,z,u) really is a constellation of relations that serve to define
>argument position.
OK, thats a good purpose for things like 'addressee'. Two quick points.
(1) Might be better to think of these as functions: this avoids the
recursive issue of how to indicate *their* converse-pattern. (2) There
might be rather a lot of them, if we need one for every argument place of
every relation. (3) They now seem to have a rather heavy burden: typing,
converse-normalising (if I may coin a phrase), role-marking, relating
events to the things playing a role in them (as well as relations to their
arguments), etc (?).
Pat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Institute (217)244 1616 office
University of Illinois (217)328 3947 or (415)855 9043 home
405 North Mathews Avenue (217)244 8371 fax
Urbana, IL. 61801 Phayes@uiuc.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------