Re: Frame-based vs ontology-based vocabulary
|From:||And Rosta <and.rosta@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, February 25, 2007, 23:25|
Sai Emrys, On 20/02/2007 11:15:
> All vocabularies that I know of, and even the fundamental ways of
> approaching the naming of things, are ontologically based. That is,
> you name *things* by placing them in categories, specifying their
> attributes, or giving them an individual name.[...]
> What I would like instead is a system based on frames.[...]
> So instead of saying something like "I bought a game from the market"
> it might be something like "[commercial transaction](buyer = I, place
> = generic, money = ?, object = [game](instrument))".
I acknowledge that you yourself say you're groping in the dark. From your
descriptions of the contrasting approaches, I could see no difference other
than the 'arity'/'adicity' of categories/predicates -- i.e. the number of
arguments/'slots'. And you seem to be saying that your prefer polyadic
predicates to monadic; but I don't get why...