Re: Order & meaning in a proposition

From: Lemming <>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:10:26 +0100
Message-ID: <>

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:00:55 -0500, "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <> wrote:

>"Lemming" <> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:57:56 +0100, Lemming
>> <> wrote:
>> >The point of contention seems to be that since the President was
>> >mentioned in the statement before the Secretary of the Interior, then
>> >the President must have been seated first. It could simply be though
>> >that the writer felt that the President is more important than the
>> >Secretary, and so should be mentioned first. The writer need not even
>> >have known the order of seating in order for the statement to be
>> >written exactly as is.
>> D'Oh, I get it now. Because a statement could have multiple
>> interpretations, when we model it we risk losing one or more of those
>> interpretations.
>Close, very close

Believe me, I'm glad to have even got close!

>- it is not just when we model it, but depending on how we
>model it -- we can lose more with one model than another. Data models are
>important for being able to apply predicate logic for querying the data, for
>example. But a data model that captures the ordering of compound nouns in a
>proposition retains more information (even if not obviously more data) than
>one that randomly orders the nouns.

I'm curious what modelling methods retain sufficient information that such nuances are captured in the final model. Do any such methods exist?


Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Received on Tue Apr 06 2004 - 20:10:26 CEST

Original text of this message