| { |
| "paper_id": "J78-3008", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T03:04:34.486161Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Roger", |
| "middle": [ |
| "C" |
| ], |
| "last": "Schank", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Yale University Department o f Computer Science New Haven", |
| "location": { |
| "postCode": "06520", |
| "region": "Conn" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "J78-3008", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "l i n g u i s t i c s , psychology and A r t i f i c i a l I n t e l l i g e n c e , c o n t r a c t a t conception, s o r t o f l i k e o r i g i n a l s i n This would not be so bad i f itwere a d i s e a s e for which t h e r e were a c u r e , but a l a s t h e r e i s none. W e a r e a l l familiar with t h e phrase \"beauty i s i n t h e eye o f t h e beholder.\" In t h i s c a s e we have an instance of \"the disease i s i n the eye o f t h e beholder\" which o f course explains why t h e cure is s o e l u s i v e . The beholder r a r e l y wants t o do anything about i t .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To d i s c u s s t h i s more s u b j e c t i v e l y , l e t ' s take a n e u t r a l case. Before doing s o , we s h a l l have t o point out what a case can be expected t o look l i k e . A case o f \"ad hocness\" usually f i t s t h e foitro (or should I say t h e \"ad hoc\" form) T k o r y X i s called \"ad hoc\" by group t d t h r i v a l theory Y The research described i n t h i s paper was supported by t h e Advanced Research P r o j e c t s Agency o f t h e Department o f Defense and monitored by t h e Office ~\\ 5 Naval Research under c o n t r a c t N00014-75-C-1111.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To g e t t o our n e u t r a l c a s e , we s h a l l start! our d i s c u s s i o n where X i s Conceptual Dependency and Y i s Transformational Generative Grammar. Be fore I begin, I should note t h a t t h e r e a r e conditions on X and Y r e l a t i v e t o each g t h e r , namely t h a t X must be a theory t h a t has been conceived a t a d d t e l a t e r than Y was conceived6 Furthermore Y should have been . dominating some academic f i e l d which X i s seeking to invade.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "What makes a theory X a s s a i l a b l e by Y a s ad hoc? There a r e a number o f c r i t e r i a : 2 -X must be fundamentally a t variance with Y , s o t h a t i f X were r i g h t Y would be n e c e s s a r i l y wrong.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a o f judgment of how a phenomena should be explained than Y does.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The following rules a r e used f o r the s t r a t e g y t o be followed i n l a b e l l i n g an X a s ad hoc: 1 -Since X w i l l undoubtedly show how i t s t h e o r y e x p l a i n s a given p a r t i c u l a r phenomenon, accuse X s theory o f only working i n t h a t case.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This w i l l put t h e burden o f proof f o r g e n e r a l i t y on X r a t h e r than Y and a l s o has t h e d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t o f puttink X i n the p o s i t i o n of not being a b l e t o prove anything with out proving everything. To what e x t e n t a r e these charges v a l i d ?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To not knowiq i f one can e x t r a c t a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n from any sentence (and i t s corroborating charge o f not provinpl that t h e r e e x i s t s a r i g h t CU diagram f o r any sentence) I plead g u i l t y . But o f course, I would be less than completely honest i f I d i d not a l s o note t h a t t h e r e does nbt e x i s t any t h e o r y o r t h e o r i s t who m u l d not a l s o have t o plead g u i l t y . Have the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s shown us t h a t they have some principled way o f e x t r a c t i n g conceptualizations from sentences o r determining t h e c o r r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n for any sentence?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Unless they a r e keeping t h e i r s o l u t i q n as a s e c r e t plan not' t o be revealed u n t i l a f t e r t h e e l e c t i o n , What about Weizenbaum s a t t a c k ?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Perhaps i t i s a l l h e u r i s t i c s .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To t h i s charge I plead no c o n t e s t . It might be that, i n the end, we w i l l have b u i l t a working program t h a t s o l v e s t h e e n t i r e n a t u r a l language problem and i t w i l l be e a s i l y l a b e l l e d a s a grand set o f h e u r i s t i c s .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "-X must ~d e", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To q w t e Dresher and Hornstein a g a i n , \"Not only h a s work i n -And what w i l l they s a y a f t e r success h a s been achieved and the u l t i m a t e n a t u r a l language system h a s been designed?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The same thing of course. Choms ky himself (personal communication) h a s claimed t h a t such a n achievement would be no more intferesting than t h e achievement o f t h e 16th c e d t u r y clockmakers. W e a r e a l l damhed by: them. Our ultimate success would not b e even recognized, much l e s s applauded by those who c r i t i c i z e our s o l u t i o n s a s ad hoc. Suppose every domain we w r k e d on r e q u i r e d y e t a n o t h r ad hoc s o l u t i o n . This might well be t h e c a s e a f t e r a l l .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "What would w l o s e i f t h i s happened? Nothing a t a l l . That s what a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a l l about. A 1 i s t h e designing and t e s t i n g of t h e o r i e s about human understanding c a p a b i l i t i e s . There i s , a t t h e moment, no reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t people solve puzzles t h e way t h e y read newbpapers o r that t h e y p l a y chess t h e m y t h e y anawer questions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Of course, we a l l hope t h a t t h e r e eltist some genera 1 lnechanisms t h a t s o l v e a l l these problelps i n some neat my. W e hope t h i s i n l a r g e p a r t because w e are l a z y . W e would not l i k e t o have t o work on each problem i n", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "d i v i d u a l l y .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "W e a l e 0 hope t h i s because w e b e l i e v e our i n t u i t i o n s when they t e l l us how reading a newspaper is a l o t like watching a soap opera.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A word of c a u t i o n i s necessary here. e that any of our t h e o r i e s a r e ad hoc. r J u s t because CD needed t o be modified by causal chaining r u l e s , and those by s c r i p t s and those by plans and g o a l s and themes, and those by t r i a n g l e s , does not mean t h a t what we a r e doing i s ad hoc. W e a r e no more ad hoc i n hypothesizing our g r i m i t i v e elements t h a n chemists werp i n h y p o t h e b z i r q t h e i r s . I do n o t knbw what t h e ultimate r e s u l t w i l l be. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Won't t h a t be t e r r i b l e !", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "J u s t t o g i v e the r e a d e r a f e e l f o r t h e n a t u r e o f ad hoc t h i n k l a g i n A 1 t h a t I b e l i e v e t o be worth espousing, I w i l l now consider a problem t h a t I have r e c e n t l y been working on. W e have had a problem i n r e p r e s e n t i n g c e r t a i n kinds o f p o l i t i c a l concepts i n our o l d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Since we have been v e r y concerned with t h e problem of newspaper s t o r y understanding i t i s very important t h a t we b e a b l e t o handle such concepts i n a c l e a n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n that w i l l f a c i l i t a t e computer understanding.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "PART I11", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The problem w e a r e attempting t o s o l v e can b e i l l u s t r a t e d by looking a t a recent New York Times h e a d l i n e \"Catawba Indians land claim supported.\" The problem h e r e i s t o be a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t what \"land claim\" and \"supported\" mean. W e know t h a t a land claim i s more than what we might use t o Something l i k e \"Indians MTRANS land be possessed by Indians\" is possibly t r u e , but 'it misses t h e point. A \"land claim\" i s i n a sense a p e t i t i o n t o 4 higher a u t h o r i t y t o resolve a This information can be represented g r a p h i c a l l y by a k n a of t r i a n g l e (example 1)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "PART I11", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In t h i s t r i a n g l e (a) represents t h e d i s p u t e between the Indians and t h e owners of t h e l a n d , In order t o add qubstance t o t h e b a r e bones of t h e t r i a n g l e s w e s h a l l have t o dead with some r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l i s s u e s t h a t are being glossed over here. The important point a t t h i s juncture i s t h a t t h a r e i s a n e s s e n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y a c r o s s (1). (2) a n t ( 3).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "AUTHORITY Other", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "t h a t t h e s i m i l a r i t y must b e represented i n some way, and t h a t that s i m i l a r f t y can be exploited f o r use i n an understanding system.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "AUTHORITY Other", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "f i r s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l problem w e encounter i n t r y i n g t o make e x p l i c i t much of what i s i m p l i c i t i n the t r i a n g l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s t h a t I n a sense then, an a u t h o r i t y i s one who when he acts like he i s doing an AUTH ( t h a t i s he does the physlcal ACTS t h a t o r d i n a r i l y correspond t o an AVTH) i n f a c t causes some things t o happen as a result o f the AUTH that.' were supposed t o be the results o f t h e AUTH. In other words, you cannot r e a l l y t e l l i f a n AUTH has taken place u n t i l i t becomes c l e a r t h a t t h e person doing the AUTH 'ban back up h i s AUTH i n some way. Why c a n t kle do these things with CD primitives we now have? What i s t h e advantage of these new ACTs? To answer these questions, we are not primitive i n t h e same sense. They can be broken down but w e muld r a r e l y choose to do so.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The use o f these new b a s i c ACTs i s much l i k e t h e dse o f t h e o r i g i n a l primitive ACTs. W e can p r e d i c t what will f i l l s l o t s reasonably i n a concephralization and make Inferences about s l o t f i l l e r s and consequent inferences a s we would any conceptualization.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Thus represent sentences such a s the following using AmH Policemen are, a u t h o r i t i e s a l s o . In (5) t h e t i c k e t i s a w r i t t e n manifestation o f a n AUTH t h a t e i t h e r puts t h e d r i v e r i n a DEFENDANT r o l e i n a $TRIAL s c r i p t o r forces him t o pay a fine. The instrue* o f the AUTH i s t h e a c t u a l PTRANS o f t h e t i c k e t ( l e f t out here). The important point here i s t h a t we could represen& ( 5 ) using E*LIRANS anly. However, what w e muLd be describing i s t h e physical ACT i t s e l f when i t i s the s o c i a l ACT t h a t i s s i g n i f i c a n t here. (WhBn I ws young t h e r e was m w h t a l k o f bad k i d s g e t t i n g \"JD' cards\". I never u q d e r s t~~d what was SO h o r r i b l e about t h a t . Couldn't they j u s t throw them away?) The s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f an ACT must be represented i f i t i s understood, Now t h a t we have presented these two ACTs l e t ' s r e t u r n t o our t r i a n g l e OWNS (land ) <=>Indians I n d i a n s Other W e w i l l l e a v e o u t t h e arrows and t h e ACTS f o r diagrammatic purposes, b u t t h e above t r i a n g l e should be understood as c o n t a i n i n g a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n i n t h e CD diagram f o r ( 1 ) . ( A c t u a l l y t h e t r i a n g l e s c o n t a i n more i . n f~r m a t i o n .)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "T r i a n g l e s provide us w i t h a method f o r r e p r e e e n t i n g t h e s o c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f a c t i o n s . As with a n y o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n scheme, t h e advantage o f t h e symbols we c r e a t e can o n l y b e I n t h e new symbols o r a c t i o n s t h a t t h e y spawn. That i s , i t i s t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t come from t h e t r i a n g l e s t h a t are o f key importance.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "When we c r e a t e d t h e o r i g i n a l p r i m i t i v e ACTs w e s a i d t h a t PROPEL was no more than t h e set o f i n f e r e n c e s t h a t we have c r e a t e d . The second kind a r e those t h a t come from t h e t r i a n g l e s themselves.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "That is, t h e r e should be p a t t e r n s o f t r i a n g l e s t h a t a r e r e c o g n i z a b l e for t h e t r i a n g l e s t h e y spawn a s w e l ln s a set o f i n f e r e n c e s t h a t come from t h e fact that c e r t a i n t r i a n g l e s e x i s t . Both o f t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s would be a v a i l a b l e a s o u t p u t from the p a r s e r .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The MTRANS r e p r e s e n t a t i o n would f i r e o f f i n f e r e n c e s about t h e methods of communication p o s s i b l y usedt h a t the UN now knows about t h e v r o b l m and so on.The PETITION r e p r e s e n t a t i a n w u l d f i r e o f f i n f e r e n c e s about t h e expected AUTH from t h e UN. Since we know how the UN does i t s AUTHs, t h i s rmuld Eire o f f a UN s c r i p t of some kind t h a t d e a l t with voting and debate. PETITION would a l s o cause DISPUTE t o be i n f e r r e d which w u l d cause i n f e r e n c e s about t h e kind of methods possibly employed by t h e quarreling c o u n t r i e s , both i n c r e a t i n g the DISPUTE and e s c a l a t i n g i t .The e x i s t e n c e o f t h e PETITION-AUTH-DISPUTE t r i a n g l e would f i r e o f f an inference t h a t t h e country kind of t r i a n g l e e x i s t e d .Thus, a new t r i a n g l e t h a t was lopsided showing p o s s i b l e aggression from Thailand towards Burma would be c r e a t e d .This t r i a n g l e would i n t u r n f i r e o f f i n f e r e n c e s about a t t e m p t s t o RESOLVE t h e DISPUTE (one o f which was (3) i t s e l f ) and would p r e d i c t an e s c a l a t i o n towards t h e WAR t r i a n g l e with i t s normal inferences i f a RESOLVE did not t a k e place.Althoirgh the above i s r a t h e r sketchy, t h e point should be c l e a r .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 315, |
| "end": 318, |
| "text": "UN.", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "annex", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "l e v e l s a t which statements can be i n t e r p r e t e d . No. I f i t were i t wouldn't be worth a t h i n g . But, h e r e a g a i n * i f the program we write can handle many examples a s we r e w r i t e i t because o f what w e have learned from i t , then it w r l l hav beeh m r t h w h i l e .The program below r e a d s newspaper headlines i n English and g e n e r a t e s , by use o f t r i a n g l e s and t h e i n f e r e n c e s a v a i l a b l e from t r i a n g l e s , a paraphrase o f t h e input. This EngUah paraphrase i s generated by the program. The Catawba Indians requested a Federal Court t o r u l e that t h e land is owned by t hem.The Catawba Indians appealed t o a Federal Court.The Catawba Indians asked a Federal Court t o rule t h a t t h e y own t h e land and it decreeed t h a t t h e land is owned by them, Weizenbaum, J., [1976] , Computer Power -and Human Reasoninp.W.H. Freeman a n n o m p a n y , San Francisco.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 867, |
| "end": 873, |
| "text": "[1976]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "We need a d d i t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l mechanisms t o handle t h e many", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": {}, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "-X must explain a phenomenon that Y chose t o ignore and t h a t Y would r a t h e r go on ignoring Since Y c b d d not p s s i b l y e x p l a i n i t .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "Choose a phenomenon t o explain i n which i t i s v i r t u a l l y impossible t o explain everything, thus giving game and s e t t o Y. Consider our hypothetical case where Conceptual Dependency i s X and Tranformational Grammar i s Y. An examination o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e w i l l show-that criteria I through 3 as w l l a s t h e two a v a i l a b l e s t r a t e g i e s have been used by t h e T r a n s f o m a t i o n a l i s t s . In v a r i o u s a r t i c l e s and public performances charges o f \"ad hocness\" have been r a i s e d a g a i n s t Conceptual Dependency. W e a r e t o l d t h a t our s t r u c t u r e s only work f o r t h e examples we d i s c u s s , t h a t we have \"no principled y h a t \"Sehank provides no demonstration t h a t h i s scheme i s more than a c o l l e c t i o n o f h e u r i s t i c s t h a t happen t o work on a s p e c i f i c c l a s s o f examples'' (Weizenbaum (1976)). ( I f t h e reader i n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t i n my view, he need only read Weizenbaum s furlherbremarks e x t o l l i n g Chomsky a s having met the c r i t e r i a t h a t he c l a i m I have not met .)", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "text": "I would have to imagine t h a t the answer t o t h i s i s t h a t they do not have a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem. So c l e a r l y , t h e y are no more o r l e s s ad hoc than w a r e . (Of course I m i g h t note here t h a t we do have programs t h a t suggest t h a t we can db a l a r g e c l a s s o f examples and show t h a t our p a r s e r s a r e a t least t h e beginning of some set of p r i n c i p l e s that work, but I won t ) .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "text": "A 1 nQt y e t made any c o n t r i b u t i o n t o a s c i e n t i f i c theory o f language, t h e r e i s no reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t (AI) . . . w i l l ever l e a d t o such theories\".", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "text": "mention a l l t h i s i n t h e hope o f pointing o u t t h a t i t i s n o t j u s t me and my t h e o r i e s that a r e damned by criticisms of ad hocness.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "text": "Beware o f your int;uitions. As a c h i l d you learned how t o d o each o f these t h i n g s s e p a r a t e l y and were pained t o d e a l with e a c h one o f them. O f course, we do expect t h e r e t o be some general p r i n c i p l e s t h a t a p p l y a c r o n c i p l e s a r e a f f i xhopping or t r a c ed e l e t i a n we a r e a l l i n t r o u b l e , b v i n g said a l l t h i s , now l e t me t e l l you what I a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e . I do not b e l i e v", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "text": "How many elements make up t h e c o r r e c t number, o r what o t h e r kinds of formalisms w i l l need t n b e added t o those l i s t e d above i s s t i l l unknown. I, do know how A1 does i t s r e s e a r c h however.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "text": "W e build a program t o do a small c l a s s o f examples and when we a r e f i n i s h e d we r i p i t a p a r t and build a bigger and b e t t e r program t o do l a r g e r examples. In so doing, ad hoc e n t i t i e s (oftimes c a l l e d kludges) cannot survive. I f a formalism does not keep handllng more d a t a i t i s e i t h e r a b a n d~e d o r moved down t o a s p e c i a l purpose r o l e -chin a l a r g e r program. Well, i n t e n y e a r s of r e s e a r c h by my r e s e a r c h group what has survived' After t e n years and probably a hundred d i f f e r e n t Mnds o f programs, Conceptual Dependency i s st111 with us. It s t i l l works f o r us. I c h a l l e n g e any o t h e r theory t h a t h a s been programmed t o say t h e same' Is i t ad hoc? I l e a v e t h a t a s an e x e r c i s e f o r t h e r e a d e r .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF8": { |
| "text": "d i s p u t e b e t w e n t w o patties. That is, t h e Indians a r e saying t o the U.S. Government, \" t h i s land i s OWS\". It may not be possible t o i n f e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of t h i s land claim. Indians have been known t o take the land by f o r c e , t o ' f i l e documents i n government o f f i c e s , t o Cromplain t o newsmen and so on. The important point here i s tat we r e a l l y need not know, and i n most cases a reader muld not bother t o worry about, e x a c t l y which method has been selected. Rather, a reader f e e l s t h a t he understands such a sentence when he has been a b l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and aims o f t h e p a r t i e s involved. A program must recognize &hat a \"land claim1' i s a type of p e t i t i o n t o a higher a u t h o r i t y t o resolve a d i s p u t e about land ownership. W e do not know who presently owns t h e land, but we know enough about ownersh3,p o f property t o i n f e r t h a t t h e r e i s probably a counter p e t i t i o n o f some s o r t . W e a l s o know about p e t i t i o n s t o a u t h o r i t y , They u s u a l l y g e t resolved by t h e a u t h o r i t y . In t h i s case then, \"supported\" r e f e r s t o the d e c i s i o n o f t h e a u t h o r i t y i n the case.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF9": { |
| "text": "(b) r e p r e s e n t s t h e appeal t o a u t h o r i t y t o r e s o l v e the d i s p u t e nade by t h e h d i a n s , and ( c ) r e p r e s e n t s the a u t h o r i t y ' s d e c i s i o n . Burma appeals t o UN t o s e t t l e border d i s p u t e WI t h Thailand 6BurmaTha il ahd(3) John complained t o B i l l ' s mother t h a t Bill h i t him.B i l l ' s MotherOf c o w s e , t h e s e t r i a n g l e s j u s t suggest t h e I Z b a s i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s $nvolved.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF10": { |
| "text": "we will need t o design a new set o f ACTS t o take. c a r e o f t h e v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In the pr i m i t i v e ACTS o f Conceptual Dependency we have a system t h a t r e p r e s e n t s physical a c t i o n s by using a m a l l s e t of b a s i c a c t i o n s t h a t can combine i n v a r i o u s ways t o d e s c r i b e d e t a i l e d or complex a c t i o n s that underlie seemingly simple Verbs and nouns. The primitive ACTs do not account f o r i n t e n t i o n a l i t y and g o a l s underlying physical a d t i o o . To account f o r such t h i n g s w e devised a complex apparatus discussed i n Schank and Abelson (1977). If we wish t o account f o r s o c i a l e v e n t s , we will need a system of b a s i c s o c i a l ACTs t o represent t h e s o c i a l a c t i o n s t h a t comprise the events. I term these \"basit s o c i a l ACTS\" r a t h e r than p r i m i t i v e ACTs because i n t h e end most s o c i a l ACTS have some phys$cal m a n i f e s t a t i o a , Of t e n t h e i r physical manifestation i s u n i n t e r e s t i n g however. For example a goverment d e c i s i o n may be MTRANS-ed i n a v a r i e t y of ways. The manner o f the MTRANS* ( w r i t t e n , ar)nounced i n a speech. e t c ) i s o f t e n not s i g n i f i c a n t with respect t o the o v e r a l l s o c i a l e f f e c t o f t h e a c t i o n . Furthermore the MTRAbJS i t s e l f i s o n l y s l i g h t l y i n t e r e s t i n g . The standard i n f e r e n c e s from MTRANS a p p l y , but t h e r e a r e some h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t inferences t h a t need t o be made t h a t a r e not obviously a v a i l a b l e . For example, t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f e r e n c e t o be made from an a u t h o r i t y ' s d e c i s i o n i s t h a t simply by virtue o f that decision something has a c t u a l l y happened. That i s , a government a u t h o r i z a t i o n is a truly p e r f o r m a t i~e ACT. Thus, i f t h e government says some property i s mine. o r t h a t a man-i s a c r i m i n a l , then i t i s so by v i r t u e a f t h e i r saying i t , S i m i l a r l y o t h e r a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s have the same peer, A professor can say a t h e s i s is finished and a student has a Ph.D. and t h e s e t h i n g s a r e the c a s e by v i r t u e o f h i s saying i t . Not a l l a u t h o r i t y ' s d e c i s i o n s a r e like t h i s t o be sure* Sometimes an a u t h o r i t y g i v e s an o r d e r and t h a t order must be c a r r i e d out f o r the d e c i s i o n t o have e f f e c t . Frequently these o r d e r s come about a s q r e s u l t o f a governmental d e c i s i o n o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n . I f t h e goverment says t h e land belongs t o the Catawba Indians, then i t does, but t h e y may have t o send i n t h e 4hti.onal Guard t o g e t t h e o r i g i n a l owner o f f t h e property. What I am proposing then is two basic s o c i a l ACTs -AUTHORIZE (abbreviated AU' PH) and ORDER. AUTH i s something only a o a u t h o r i t y can do. (This i s a b i t c i r c u l a r a c t t a l l y s i n c e i f you a c t u a l l y can AUTH then t h a t d e f h e s you a s an authority.)", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF11": { |
| "text": "The o b j e c t o f t h e AUTH i s t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o r new s t a t e o f dte world. AUTH takes a r e c i p i e n t , namely t h e relevant p a r t i e s i n the dispute. ORDER i s a frequent inference o f WTH. The government can AUTH t h e army t o f i g h t a wat , b u t t h a t doesn't, simply by v i r t u e o f the statement, imply t h a t they a r e fighting i t . A subsequent ORDER i s required that c a r r i e s with i t t h e i m p l i c i t punishments t h a t a r e relevant i n carrying out an order.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF12": { |
| "text": "need t o look a t t h e purposre of a primitive ACT. It %s possible t o represent ORDER i n CD f o r example.The v e r b 'order' means toMTRANS t o someone that they must do a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n o r face some ( u s u a l l y i m p l i c i t ) conseqyence .Thus, i m p l i c i t i n t h e verb 'order'but e x p l i c i t i n the CD r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r 'ordet', is t h e idea t h a t if t h e required ACT i s not perfomed then someone w i l l possibly do somethiq t o harm the r e c i p i e n t o f t h e order i n some way. This implied punisharent i s a p a r t o f t h e concept 'order' but i s i t necessary t h a t we t h i n k of i t each time t h a t ~JE! understand an order t o have taken place?The same question can be asked with respectt o m t h o r i z e . W e understand what a u t h o r i z a t i o n or governmental d e c i s i o n i s , but we need not access a l l t h a t information each time we understand the wlord. Consider t h e problem o f explaining the meaning of these mrds t o a c h i l d f o r example. Et i s very d i f f i c u l t t o explain them p r e c i s e l y because they a r e so complicated a t the l e v e l of physical primttive ACls Yet these i d e a s a r e r e a l l y not complicated at a l l a t a s o c i a l l e v e l of ACTs. Such simple cgncepts such a s ORDER and AUTHaIZE form the basis sf t h e organization o f s o c i e t i e s . What i s complex a t one l e v e l is simple a t another. ThiS idea o f nested l e v e l s of complectity, each wLth t h e i r own set of primitives, i s a very important one f o r the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f information i n a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e . By choosing a good set o f primitives w can e f f e c t i v e l y organize what we need t o know. Thus, ORDER and AUTHORIZE have inferences that come from them j u s t a s t h e physical primitive AC?S d o , The main d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t these b a s i c a o c i a l ACTS", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF13": { |
| "text": "w have chosen t o ignore representing segregation f o r the moment, s i n c e i t i s obviously complex. Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s a r e AUtHs. They a l s o t a r r y with them (as do most A U T~) an i m p l i c i t ORDER f o r 'punishment' i f c e r t a i n circumstances are n o t met The straightforward inference from (4) then is t h a t someone practicing s e e e g a t i o n &an expect t o be punished.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF14": { |
| "text": "named one s i d e o f t h e t r i a n g l e , The ~t h e r s i d e s represent ACTs a s 1 The complete t r i a n g l e is a s follows A DISPUTE The ACT PETITION r e p r e s e n t s a n individual o r group's a c t o f requesting AUTH's from an a u t h o r i t y . Thus a \" c i v i l suit\" is a PETLTION t o t h e c o u r t s using some l e g a l s c r i p t s . A p r o t e s t demonstration i s a PETITION t o unstated a u t h o r i t i e s using some d e m o n s t r a t i o n s c r i p t . The p o i n t here i s t h a t we cannot d o away with t u a l p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f t h e s e e v e n t s . However, t h e s c r i p t $ are i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h e social ACT involved -PETITION, me most important i n f e r e n c e from PF,TITION i s , o f c o u r s e , t h a t an AUTH i s expected t h a t w i l l r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e t h a t i s t h e o b j e c t o f t h e PETITTON. The i s s u e t h a t i s t h e o b j e c t o f t h e PETITION i s t h e DISPUTE i t s e l f . DISPUTE t a k e s two a c t o r s (one OF whom may b e q u i t e p a s s i v e ) . Thq o b j e c t o f t h e DISPUTE i s t h e i s s u e involved. DISPUTE t a k e s no recipient a s it is not an inherently directed ACT. It i s t h e ACT o f PETITION t h a t d i r e c t s i t t o a p a r t i c u l a r a u t h o r i t y who c a n AUTH something t h a t w i l l r e s o l v e i t . W e a r e now ready t o d e a l w i t h sentence (1) (Catawba I n d i a n s Land C l a i m Supported). The r e p r e s e n t d t i o n using t h e new s o c i a l ACTs i s 0 Indians<=>DIS PUTE<--(OWN ( l a n d ) <=>?) ---<Ind i a n s --->Ind i a n s I o r o t h e r S i n c e t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s n o t a s e a s y t o write as t h e t r i a m u l a r o n e , M e s h a l l contidue t o use t r i a n g l e s i n t h e remainder o f t h e paper. Thus ( 1 ) i s U.S. Gov't.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF15": { |
| "text": "i t f i r e d o f f . The same i k true h e r e , s o we must ask what t h e s e i n f e r e n c e s are.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF16": { |
| "text": "The f i r s t t h i n g we can recognize a b o u tp o t e n t i a l i n f e r e n c e s h e r e i s t h a t t h e y w i n come t m v a r i e t i e s . The f i r s t are t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h a t are f i r e d o f f from t h e new s o c i a l ACTs t h a t", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF17": { |
| "text": "Aq examples o f t h i s l e t us c o n s i d e r a g a i n s e n t e n c e( 2 )( 2 ) Burma a p p e a l s t o UY t o s e t t l e border d i s p u t e w i t h Thailand .", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF18": { |
| "text": "S i n c e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n wf ( 2 ) i n v o l v e s a PETITION we c a n employ t h e i n f e r e n c e r u l e s that a r e f i r e d by PhTITION. %me of t h e s e a e r y PCTXrION t h e r e was probablyh a DISPUTE t h a t gave rise t o i t . These rules l e a d u s t o t h e i n f e r e n c e s a v a i l a b l e from AUTH and UISPUTE. O f course, i n f e r e n c e s from i n f e r e n c e s have a lower p r o b a b i l i t y o f t r o t h , s o f o r ( 2 ) t h e i.nferences below would be somewhat l e s s c e r t a i n .c . An AUTH can cause a DISPUTE t o end. d . An AUTH can cause a PETITION t o a h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y from t h e p a r t y unfavorably a f f e c t e d by the AUTH. e . A n unfavorable AUTH c a n cause a r e b e l l i o n , o r lac^ of a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e AUTH. T h i s c a n give r i s e t o ORDERS t o e f f e c t t h e AUTH i n t h e c a s e o f individ1lrtI.s v e r s u s governments o r vars i n t h e c a s e o f govePnmenta1 c o n f l i . c t s f . An AUTH c a u s e s a new s t a t e o f t h e world t o e x i s t , o f t e n ending an o l d s t a t e i n c o n f l i c t rJith t h e new s t a t e . g. A DISPUTE can cause one p a r t y t o PETITION. h . A DISPUTE c s n cause a PROPEL t o cause damage t o occur f o r individuals, or a WAR t r i a n g l e t o b e i n i t i a t e d f o r c o u n t r i e s . There a r e , o f c o u r s e , a g r e a t many more o f t h e s e kinds o f i n f e r e n c e s t h a n w e a r e l i s t i n g h e r e . The above list i s m o s t l j rntended t o g i v e t h e flavor o f b a s i c s o c i a l A C r i n f e r e n c e s . It i s important t o n o t e t h a t t h e s o c i a l ACTs S i v e r t s e t o i n f e r e n c e s A t b o t h o f t h e o t h e r l e v e l s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b e s i d e s t h o s e a t t h e same level of r e p r e d e n t a t i o n . That j, s , g i v e n a s o c i a l ACT we may b e a b l e t o i n f e r a n o t h e r s o c i a l ACT, a new p r i m r t i v e ACT, o r a new t r i a n g u l a r r e p r e s e n t a t r o n . Thus, f o r ( 2 ) we have two r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o s t a r t w i t h one i s a t t h e standard CD l e v e L and u s e s MTRANS, t h e o t h e r i s a t t h e s o c i a l l e v e l and u s e s PETITION.", |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
