Schwitter2008controlled question 1 by lebo
From Semantic Portal Wiki
CSCI 6966 Advanced Semantic Web (Fall 2008)
- syllabus, announcements, presentations
- Lesson 1, Lesson 2, Lesson 3, Lesson 4, Lesson 5, Lesson 6,
- Lesson 7, Lesson 8, Lesson 9, Lesson 10, Lesson 11, Lesson 12, Lesson 13
A Question from Tim Lebo about schwitter2008controlled:
The Controlled Natural Language presented in this paper seems to be useful for pedagogical purposes, but little more. Although hiding a more obscure syntax /may/ increase the approachability and/or "explainability", it seems that a novice would still require a background understanding of OWL Lite^minus to do anything useful. The novice is at risk for establishing a greater expectation for the language based on the assumption that the English-like sentences are English; these expectations will be unfulfilled by the restricted ("focused"?) capabilities of a logic-based system. On the other hand, the verbosity that provides approachability for the novice would hinder use by "knowledge engineers" who prefer a more concise syntax. However, these issues are most concerning only when authoring the TBox and ABox. When posing questions to the system, the interaction seems more natural. This is done by generating a satisfying model with SATCHMO, which includes all entailed statements.
- What is a "satisfying model",
- how does it differ from other kinds of models, and
- how is it generated?
Shangguan Journal CNLPresentation
- Answer:
| A | Question + |
| About | Schwitter2008controlled + |
| Author | Tim Lebo + |
| Question asked | The Controlled Natural Language presented … The Controlled Natural Language presented in this paper seems to be useful for pedagogical purposes, but little more. Although hiding a more obscure syntax /may/ increase the approachability and/or "explainability", it seems that a novice would still require a background understanding of OWL Lite^minus to do anything useful. The novice is at risk for establishing a greater expectation for the language based on the assumption that the English-like sentences are English; these expectations will be unfulfilled by the restricted ("focused"?) capabilities of a logic-based system. On the other hand, the verbosity that provides approachability for the novice would hinder use by "knowledge engineers" who prefer a more concise syntax. However, these issues are most concerning only when authoring the TBox and ABox. When posing questions to the system, the interaction seems more natural. This is done by generating a satisfying model with SATCHMO, which includes all entailed statements.
|
| Question asked by | Tim Lebo + |
| Question for the Presentation | Shangguan Journal CNLPresentation + |
| Text | The Controlled Natural Language presented … The Controlled Natural Language presented in this paper seems to be useful for pedagogical purposes, but little more. Although hiding a more obscure syntax /may/ increase the approachability and/or "explainability", it seems that a novice would still require a background understanding of OWL Lite^minus to do anything useful. The novice is at risk for establishing a greater expectation for the language based on the assumption that the English-like sentences are English; these expectations will be unfulfilled by the restricted ("focused"?) capabilities of a logic-based system. On the other hand, the verbosity that provides approachability for the novice would hinder use by "knowledge engineers" who prefer a more concise syntax. However, these issues are most concerning only when authoring the TBox and ABox. When posing questions to the system, the interaction seems more natural. This is done by generating a satisfying model with SATCHMO, which includes all entailed statements.
|
