Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 06 No. 46
NL-KR Digest (Wed Dec 6 14:15:16 1989) Volume 6 No. 46
Today's Topics:
chemical softwares
SUNY Buffalo Cognitive Science Colloquium
Seminar on Computers, Design, and Work - Wednesday, 6 December
AI Seminar
Announcement of talks
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.
BITNET subscribers: we now have a LISTSERVer for nl-kr.
You may send submissions to NL-KR@RPIECS
and any listserv-style administrative requests to LISTSERV@RPIECS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
From: napoli@loria.crin.fr (frames)
Subject: chemical softwares
Date: 1 Dec 89 10:54:38 GMT
Reply-To: napoli@loria.crin.fr (Amedeo Napoli)
Organization: CRIN - INRIA, Nancy, France
Keywords: chemistry, knowledge representation, chemical sotwares
"Bonjour"
I would like to draw up a list of avalaible softwares (free or
industrial softwares) working in chemistry, especially:
- chemical data-base management systems,
- knowledge-based systems for automatic synthesis,
- MNR or mass spectra interpretation systems,
- molecular drawing systems,
- etc.
I would gretly appreciate if people who send me information can also
provide the address where theses sotware can be found, thier prices,
and all other relevant things that would be of interest in this context.
I will put on the net the list I will get.
Many thanks in advance,
- -- Amedeo Napoli (EMAIL : napoli@loria.crin.fr)
CRIN-INRIA Lorraine
BP 239
54506 Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy Cedex, France
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 15:31:05 -0500
From: rapaport@cs.Buffalo.EDU (William J. Rapaport)
Subject: SUNY Buffalo Cognitive Science Colloquium
SUNY Buffalo
Center for Cognitive Science
presents
CHARLES O. FRAKE
Samuel P. Capen Professor
Department of Anthropology
SUNY Buffalo
WHERE DO DIRECTIONS COME FROM?
FROM INFORMATION PROCESSING TO THE DISPLAY OF KNOWLEDGE
IN REAL-WORLD SPATIAL ORIENTATION
Attempts to understand ethnographic and historical data on diverse mari-
time navigational systems have uncovered several curious puzzles whose
solution requires attention to some major problems confronting all stu-
dents of human cognition. These problems concern mental models, their
representations, technological embodiments, ecological applications,
social uses, and cultural sources. A discussion of these problems
informs the larger issue of identifying the sources of uniformity and
variation in human cognitive systems. It also makes an argument for the
practicality and utility (and enjoyment) of investigations of non-
artificial intelligence.
Thursday, December 7, 1989
4:00 P.M.
280 Park Hall, Amherst Campus
For further information, contact Erwin Segal, Department of Psychology,
716-636-3675, segal@cs.buffalo.edu, or William J. Rapaport, Department of
Computer Science, 716-636-3193, rapaport@cs.buffalo.edu
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 10:24:24 PST
From: ingrid@russell.Stanford.EDU (Ingrid Deiwiks)
Subject: Seminar on Computers, Design, and Work - Wednesday, 6 December
SEMINAR ON COMPUTERS, WORK, AND DESIGN
The Negotiation of Expert Status
William D. Rifkin
Stanford University
Wednesday, 6 December, 12:15
Ventura 17
Expert ability differs from expert status. I argue in this paper that
the office of "expert" represents a provisional social status. This
negotiated status emerges as a measure of authority in a relationship
conducted between a relative specialist, who is a candidate for expert
status, and someone who is effectively a client consulting the
specialist for help in making a decision. The client, in attempting
to evaluate whether the specialist has something credible and relevant
to say, gauges the person, the specialist, as much as the utterance.
The client's joint selection of whom and what to heed rests on
understandings of the discourse and social structure of an issue-based
community. This "issue arena," like other types of communities, is
wrought through with internal stratification (here, based on
occupational affiliation) and interest group conflict. In presenting
this interpretation, I am engaging in an exercise in discourse design
based on grounded theory. I am borrowing from literature on language
and community and illustrating my points with examples from three
years of observations of a local water board concerned with toxic
waste issues. I am designing a discourse for laypersons to link their
feelings of disenfranchisement as relative nonexperts to cultural
understandings of occupational culture, status, and the ritual nature
of relationships between specialists and clients.
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 14:45 EDT
From: MMETEER@rcca.bbn.com
Subject: AI Seminar
[[ Note this is late, but I'm posting it anyway - CW ]]
BBN STC Science Development Program
AI Seminar Series Lecture
SEMANTIC INTERPRETATION AND THE LEXICON:
WHAT MAKES SENSE?
Paul S. Jacobs
AI Program, GE Research
Schenectady, NY 12301 USA
jacobs@crd.ge.com
BBN STC, 2nd Floor Conference Room
10 Moulton Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Tuesday, December 5, 10:30 am
Practical applications of natural language demand precision in
semantic interpretation, highlighting the problems of lexical ambiguity
and vagueness. The representation and discrimination of word meanings
is thus a key issue for language analysis, motivated especially by the
need for broad scale NL systems and by applications in information retrieval.
A successful method for distinguishing word senses, however coarsely,
could be a major contribution to natural language processing technology.
Past research does not point to a successful strategy for sense
discrimination, but it does reveal some naive approaches that won't work.
The most obvious of these is the simple search for intersections or
``lexical coherence'' among word sense categories. This twenty-year-old
approach is still popular and still destined to fail. Sense discrimination
depends on context, and context is more than the combination of the words
that appear together. Context comprises topic analysis, phrasal constructs,
complex events, and linguistic and conceptual structures. This research
focuses on accessing the power of these more complex contextual structures
in identifying word senses using a lexicon of over 10,000 roots. Semantic
and syntactic preferences, lexical relations, and other structural knowledge
combine in our approach to help with generic sense discrimination.
------------------------------
To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 09:47:18 PST
From: ingrid@russell.Stanford.EDU (Ingrid Deiwiks)
Subject: Announcement of talks
SEMINAR ON COMPUTERS, WORK, AND DESIGN
The Negotiation of Expert Status
William D. Rifkin
Stanford University
Wednesday, 6 December, 12:15
Ventura 17
Expert ability differs from expert status. I argue in this paper that
the office of "expert" represents a provisional social status. This
negotiated status emerges as a measure of authority in a relationship
conducted between a relative specialist, who is a candidate for expert
status, and someone who is effectively a client consulting the
specialist for help in making a decision. The client, in attempting
to evaluate whether the specialist has something credible and relevant
to say, gauges the person, the specialist, as much as the utterance.
The client's joint selection of whom and what to heed rests on
understandings of the discourse and social structure of an issue-based
community. This "issue arena," like other types of communities, is
wrought through with internal stratification (here, based on
occupational affiliation) and interest group conflict. In presenting
this interpretation, I am engaging in an exercise in discourse design
based on grounded theory. I am borrowing from literature on language
and community and illustrating my points with examples from three
years of observations of a local water board concerned with toxic
waste issues. I am designing a discourse for laypersons to link their
feelings of disenfranchisement as relative nonexperts to cultural
understandings of occupational culture, status, and the ritual nature
of relationships between specialists and clients.
____________
PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM
Mencius and Hsun-tzu: Two Views of Human Agency
Bryan Van Norden
Department of Philosophy
Stanford University
Friday, 8 December 1989, 3:15
Bldg. 90, Room 92Q
No abstract available.
____________
COMMONSENSE AND NONMONOTONIC REASONING SEMINAR
Implementing Autoepistemic Logic on a Reason Maintenance System
Kurt Konolige
SRI International
Monday, 11 December, 3:15
Margaret Jacks Hall 252
Recent work shows that a Reason Maintenance System (RMS) can be
formalized as a type of autoepistemic theory. In this paper, we
consider the inverse transformation: trying to implement an arbitrary
autoepistemic theory as an RMS. In so doing, we provide a
computationally attractive theorem-proving methodology for
autoepistemic logic.
____________
SYNTAX WORKSHOP
Switch-reference in Jiwarli (and elsewhere)
Peter Austin
La Trobe University
Tuesday, 12 December, 7:30
CSLI, Cordura 100
Switch-reference is a syntactic device found in many languages whereby
the subjects of two clauses are indicated to be coreferential (SS -
same subject) or noncoreferential (DS - different subject).
Typically, switch-reference is coded on the dependent clause verb, as
in the following examples from Diyari (central Australia):
(1) Ngathu nhinha nhayiyi yatha-rna
I him see talk-SS
"I see him as (I'm) talking"
(2) Ngathu nhinha nhayiyi yatha-rnanhi
I him see talk-DS
"I see him as (he's) talking"
Switch-reference has been discussed in the G-B literature by Finer
1985, Hale 1989, and Jeanne and Hale 1989 in terms of a binding
relationship between the two clauses. In LFG, Simpson 1983 and
Bresnan and Simpson 1983 discuss switch-reference in terms of a
relation of anaphoric control.
I will examine data from a number of Aboriginal languages, primarily
Jiwarli from Western Australia, describing their switch-reference
systems and discussing whether either the G-B or LFG accounts (or some
other account) best deals with the systems found in these languages.
The next workshop will be on 9 January 1990.
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
