[Attempto] paraphrasing quantification

[Gabriele Kahlout]

2010/7/12 Norbert E. Fuchs <fuchs at ifi.uzh.ch>

>
> 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.

I assume paraphrasing is done by APE (described as Attempto system in the
troubleshooting guide).
If so then it seems to me that some  'interpretation' is done.
Paraphrasing X1 is a card into:

There is something X1.
X1 is a card.

 does not seem just syntactic analysis, but interpretation.
If so then my expectations above are founded.

Second, consider that "intelligent" paraphrasing depends on the expectations
> of the respective user. Your expectations may differ from mine.

So my paraphrasing followed from the above one did, and I would argue that
for the described case above (at least, the first, the second, etc..) is
unambiguous natural language. I do agree that it could be done at a later
stage, by RACE for instance.

Third, to provide a feedback to the users ACE's paraphrasing gives a
> *syntactic* variant of the input text, not a semantic one.
>
I'm not sure I grasp the fine line between semantic analysis and
paraphrasing.
So if a user accepts a paraphrase then his expression and the paraphrase are
semantically equivalent. So the accepted syntactic variant is also a
semantic variant.
Then my suggestion could be a syntatic variant too.


>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,
K. Gabriele

--- unchanged since 25/1/10 ---
P.S. Unless a notification (LON), please reply either with an answer OR with
" ACK" appended to this subject within 48 hours. Otherwise, I might resend.
In(LON, this) ∨ In(48h, TimeNow) ∨ ∃x. In(x, MyInbox) ∧ IsAnswerTo(x, this)
∨ (In(subject(this), subject(x)) ∧ In(ACK, subject(x)) ∧
¬IsAnswerTo(x,this)) ⇒ ¬IResend(this).

Also note that correspondence may be received only from specified a priori
senders, or if the subject of this email ends with a code, eg. -LICHT01X,
then also from senders whose reply contains it.
∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y,
subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/pipermail/attempto/attachments/20100712/45cbfc0e/attachment-0001.htm>