Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 06 No. 22
NL-KR Digest (Thu Apr 20 11:49:56 1989) Volume 6 No. 22
Today's Topics:
Parsing Hungarian: Answer to Nurkkala
IJCAI-89 Workshop on Conceptual Graphs
BBN AI Seminar: Paul Cohen
BBN AI Seminar: Gunar Liepins
CSLI Calendar, April 20, 4:23
Submissions: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Requests, policy: nl-kr-request@cs.rpi.edu
Back issues are available from host archive.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.10] in
the files nl-kr/Vxx/Nyy (ie nl-kr/V01/N01 for V1#1), mail requests will
not be promptly satisfied. If you can't reach `cs.rpi.edu' you may want
to use `turing.cs.rpi.edu' instead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 89 08:19:10 +0200
From: Klaus Schubert <dlt1!schubert@nluug.nl>
Phone: +31 30 911911
Telex: 40342 bso nl
Subject: Parsing Hungarian: Answer to Nurkkala
An answer to Tom Nurkkala:
You are looking for references to work on languages with an affix-based
syntax. According to Mel'^cuk's judgement ("English is very exotic") any
language other than English will do. I cannot offer Finnish, which would
match your name best, but Hungarian. The article is written by a scholar who
has written a Hungarian word parser and deals mainly with the underlying
morphological analysis, suited for dependency-syntactic parsing:
Pr'osz'eky, G'abor (1988): Hungarian - a special challenge to machine
translation?
In: New Directions in Machine Translation.
Ed. Dan Maxwell / Klaus Schubert / Toon Witkam.
Dordrecht / Providence: Foris Publications,
pp. 219-231
Regards,
Klaus Schubert
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: 19 Apr 89 09:22:13 EDT
From: john Sowa <SOWA@ibm.com>
Subject: IJCAI-89 Workshop on Conceptual Graphs
Call for Participation:
Workshop on Conceptual Graphs
August 20 & 21, 1989
IJCAI-89
The Fourth Annual Workshop on Conceptual Graphs will be held at IJCAI-89
in Detroit, Michigan, on Sunday August 20 and Monday August 21. It will
provide a forum for researchers and practitioners to exchange ideas
about the theory and applications of conceptual graphs. Attendance will
be limited to people who are actively using, developing, extending, or
implementing conceptual graphs.
Those who are interested in participating should submit a two-page
extended abstract about their work with an indication of whether they
would like to (a) present a full paper, (b) present a short summary of
their work, or (c) simply attend. Seven copies of the abstract are due
by May 10 at the following address:
Conceptual Graph Workshop Committee
c/o Janice A. Nagle
1641 E. Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55425
Copies of the proceedings of the 1988 Conceptual Graph Workshop are
available from the AAAI for $20. No proceedings are available for the
first two workshops.
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
From: Marc Vilain <mvilain@BBN.COM>
Subject: BBN AI Seminar: Paul Cohen
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 14:30:37 EDT
BBN STC Science Development Program
AI Seminar Series Lecture
PLAUSIBLE INFERENCE, EXTENDED COMPOSITION,
AND ONTOLOGY MAINTENANCE
PAUL R. COHEN
Experimental Knowledge Systems Laboratory
Department of Computer and Information Science
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
BBN STC, 2nd floor large conference room
10 Moulton St, Cambridge MA, 02138
Friday April 21st, 10:30 AM
I will present work I have done with Cynthia Loiselle on a simple
method for generating rules of plausible inference from the relations
in a knowledge base, and, more recently, on the question of how to
predict the plausibility of the conclusions of inferences. Unlike
deductive inferences, conclusions generated by rules of plausible
inference are not *guaranteed* to be "true" or plausible in any sense,
so for every rule, we need to know whether it generates plausible
conclusions (or, in the case of Collins' certainty conditions, what
would make the conclusions more or less plausible). Experiments with
human subjects show that relatively little information is needed to
make moderately accurate plausibility predictions for the rules we
generated. Still, roughly 30% of the implausible inferences in our
test set were predicted to be plausible, so we have been examining
what additional knowledge is necessary to improve this performance. I
will describe Huhns and Stephens' adaptation of relation element
theory (called extended composition) to the task of predicting the
plausibility of inferences, and show that their system is essentially
equivalent to our own, but could be extended to provide the
information needed to improve plausibility predictions. I will also
touch on the role of plausible inference in ontology maintenance, the
process of determining the meaning of new relations or revising the
meaning of existing relations in a very large knowledge base such as
CYC.
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
From: Marc Vilain <mvilain@BBN.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 15:35:55 EDT
Subject: BBN AI Seminar: Gunar Liepins
BBN STC Science Development Program
AI Seminar Series Lecture
ISSUES IN GENETIC OPTIMIZATION
GUNAR LIEPINS
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
BBN STC, 2nd floor large conference room
10 Moulton St, Cambridge MA, 02138
Tuesday April 25th, 10:30 AM
This presentation reviews several genetic algorithm applications,
provides a brief introduction to the genetic paradigm, and addresses
multi-objective and constrained optimization. The roles of sampling
(embedding) and representation are made explicit and illustrated from
the perspective of function dimensionality and smoothness. The four
modes of GA failure: estimation, crossover disruption, stability of
regions of attraction, and schemata deceptiveness, are reviewed. A
simple construction for fully deceptive problems of arbitrary size is
given. The presentation concludes that the primary challenges are to
improve GA efficiency and better characterize their domain of
applicability.
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 16:33:52 PDT
From: emma@csli.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease)
Subject: CSLI Calendar, April 20, 4:23
C S L I C A L E N D A R O F P U B L I C E V E N T S
_____________________________________________________________________________
20 April 1989 Stanford Vol. 4, No. 23
_____________________________________________________________________________
A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
____________
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR THIS THURSDAY, 20 April 1989
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Cordura Hall Varieties of Context: Session 3
Conference Room Indexicality in Context
Geoffrey Nunberg, Xerox PARC
(nunberg.pa@xerox.com)
Respondent: Brian Smith
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:00 p.m. STASS Seminar
Cordura Hall Dewey on Defeasible Reasoning
Conference Room Tom Burke
(burke@csli.stanford.edu)
Abstract in last week's Calendar
____________
CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, 27 April 1989
12:00 p.m. TINLunch
Cordura Hall Reading: "A compositional approach to discourse
Conference Room representation theory" by Henk Zeevat
Discussion led by Stanley Peters
(peters@csli.stanford.edu)
Abstract below
2:15 p.m. CSLI Seminar
Cordura Hall Varieties of Context: Session 4
Conference Room Contexts in Activity
Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
(suchman.pa@xerox.com)
Respondent: Susan Stucky
Abstract below
3:30 p.m. Tea
Ventura Hall
4:00 p.m. STASS Seminar
Cordura Hall To be announced
Conference Room
____________
NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
Reading: "A compositional approach to discourse
representation theory" by Henk Zeevat
(Linguistics and Philosophy 12:95-131, 1989)
Discussion led by Stanley Peters
(peters@csli.stanford.edu)
April 27
Hans Kamp and others have talked about the system for representing
discourse, which he introduced in "A theory of truth and semantic
representation," as both a formal language for analyzing the
contribution sentences make to the truth conditions of a discourse and
an account of the representation that hearers construct mentally of a
situation or world being described to them. These authors have
emphasized the noncompositionality of discourse representation
systems. Zeevat's paper attempts to show how Kamp's DRT can be
formulated as a compositional system within Montague's framework of
Universal Grammar, and thereby to isolate what is really distinctive
about DRT as contrasted with Montague's Intensional Logic and other
more "traditional" ways of representing truth conditions.
____________
NEXT WEEK'S CSLI SEMINAR
Varieties of Context: Session 4
Contexts in Activity
Lucy Suchman, Xerox PARC
(suchman.pa@xerox.com)
Respondent: Susan Stucky
April 27
In "Plans and Situated Actions" (1987) I argued that the central
problem for an account of purposeful action is to understand the
relation between our reasoning about action and the organization of
our activity in situ. Such an understanding requires that we take
efficient descriptions like plans as resources for rather than
determinants of the organization of situated activity. In this talk
I'll review the argument briefly, drawing a parallel between this view
and the architecture of John Perry's three-story house. In
particular, I'll locate the problem of situated activity as the role
of the second floor, the missing middle, in establishing a productive
interaction between intentions and the requirements of locally
contingent action.
Recently, we have embarked on a new project to explore the problem
of situated activity in a specific setting. A starting premise for
the investigation is that rather than there being a context that
surrounds this setting's activity and gives it sense, participants in
the setting continually reproduce multiple domains of relevance which
organize their actions and to which their actions are made
accountable. We'll work through this premise and some of its
implications in relation to a piece of activity recorded on videotape.
____________
SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FORUM
Symbols and Thought
Fred Dretske, Philosophy
Friday, 28 April, 3:15, 60:62N
Symbols have meaning. Hence, to manipulate symbols is to operate
on---or at least with---meaningful elements. And this, according to
some, is what both minds do when they think, reason, and infer and
what machines (mainly digital computers) do when they multiply,
renumber footnotes, or correct our spelling. Hence, a computer's
manipulation of symbols is an attractive model for the mind. Both are
symbol systems---systems that traffic in meanings.
If thinking that the sun is shining was manipulating (in some
appropriate way) a symbol, or a set of symbols, that meant that the
sun is shining, then there would be reason to believe that machines
could (or would some day---as soon as we got them to manipulate
symbols the right way) think that the sun is shining.
Is this right? Is thinking that the sun is shining merely a matter
of manipulating (in the right way) symbols that mean the sun is
shining? If not, what more is required?
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
