[Attempto] paraphrasing quantification

[Norbert E. Fuchs]

On 12 Jul 2010, at 19:24, Gabriele Kahlout wrote:

> I'm wondering why "There are 3 cards" is not paraphrased in any 'intelligent' way, eg. "There is a card X1. There is a card X2. There is a card X3." 
> In English I would then unambiguously refer to "the first card [of the 3 cards]" and then "the only red card in the 3 cards/them" and "a card of the 3 cards". My hope is that ACE could express (at least conceptually) every thing unambiguous english could. 
> 
> Is it because paraphrasing "there are 10000000 cards" is expensive?
> If so, no cheap alternatives exist?
> Could this be one:
> If the parser encounters "the first card [of the 3 cards]"  and it's the first encounter then the parser backtracks and adds "there is a card Xn". Then the first card could be paraphrased as The card X1 [...].
> 
> "the only red card in the 3 cards/them": 
> (Is the lack of support for only a matter of time/priority or a technical difficulty?)
> There is a card Xn. The card Xn is a red card.
> 
> "a card of the 3 cards":
> There is a card Xn. The card Xn [...]. 
> Xn could then actually be Xn-1 for instance. 

On 12 Jul 2010, at 19:49, Jean-Marc Vanel wrote:

> 2010/7/12 Gabriele Kahlout <gabriele at mysimpatico.com>
> Hello,
> I'm wondering why "There are 3 cards" is not paraphrased in any 'intelligent' way, eg. "There is a card X1. There is a card X2. There is a card X3." 
> 
> First your proposed paraphrase is not semantically correct ACE (and FOL).
> There is no garanty that the 3 variables are distinct.
> 
> A possible ACE paraphrase would be :
> ./ape.exe -guess -text 'p:X1 is a card. p:X2 is a card. p:X3 is a card. ' -solo paraphrase
> X1 is a card.
> X2 is a card.
> X3 is a card.
> 
> A proper noun ( p: prefix ) is the way to "instanciate" a unique object.

Some comments.

Concerning Gabriele's  statements. First, ACE is a syntactic language that leaves interpretations – for instance the meaning of words, the meaning of the copula , or the meaning of collective plurals – to the users, respectively to their programs that process the DRS generated by APE. Second, consider that "intelligent" paraphrasing depends on the expectations of the respective user. Your expectations may differ from mine. Third, to provide a feedback to the users ACE's paraphrasing gives a *syntactic* variant of the input text, not a semantic one.

Concerning Jean-Marc's comments. Whether or two variables or two constants – expressed in ACE as proper nouns– refer to different or to the same object depends on the program that interprets the DRS. While RACE – like FOL –  uses the unique name assumption, OWL – generated by the ACE -> OWL translation – does not. 

Regards.

   --- nef