nl-kr-request@cs.rpi.edu (NL-KR Moderator Chris Welty) (12/07/89)
NL-KR Digest (Wed Dec 6 14:15:16 1989) Volume 6 No. 46 Today's Topics: chemical softwares SUNY Buffalo Cognitive Science Colloquium Seminar on Computers, Design, and Work - Wednesday, 6 December AI Seminar Announcement of talks Submissions: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu Requests, policy: nl-kr-request@cs.rpi.edu Back issues are available from host archive.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.10] in the files nl-kr/Vxx/Nyy (ie nl-kr/V01/N01 for V1#1), mail requests will not be promptly satisfied. If you can't reach `cs.rpi.edu' you may want to use `turing.cs.rpi.edu' instead. BITNET subscribers: we now have a LISTSERVer for nl-kr. You may send submissions to NL-KR@RPIECS and any listserv-style administrative requests to LISTSERV@RPIECS. ----------------------------------------------------------------- To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu >From: napoli@loria.crin.fr (frames ) Subject: chemical softwares Date: 1 Dec 89 10:54:38 GMT Reply-To: napoli@loria.crin.fr (Amedeo Napoli) Organization: CRIN - INRIA, Nancy, France Keywords: chemistry, knowledge representation, chemical sotwares "Bonjour" I would like to draw up a list of avalaible softwares (free or industrial softwares) working in chemistry, especially: - chemical data-base management systems, - knowledge-based systems for automatic synthesis, - MNR or mass spectra interpretation systems, - molecular drawing systems, - etc. I would gretly appreciate if people who send me information can also provide the address where theses sotware can be found, thier prices, and all other relevant things that would be of interest in this context. I will put on the net the list I will get. Many thanks in advance, - -- Amedeo Napoli (EMAIL : napoli@loria.crin.fr) CRIN-INRIA Lorraine BP 239 54506 Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy Cedex, France ------------------------------ To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 15:31:05 -0500 >From: rapaport@cs.Buffalo.EDU (William J. Rapaport) Subject: SUNY Buffalo Cognitive Science Colloquium SUNY Buffalo Center for Cognitive Science presents CHARLES O. FRAKE Samuel P. Capen Professor Department of Anthropology SUNY Buffalo WHERE DO DIRECTIONS COME FROM? FROM INFORMATION PROCESSING TO THE DISPLAY OF KNOWLEDGE IN REAL-WORLD SPATIAL ORIENTATION Attempts to understand ethnographic and historical data on diverse mari- time navigational systems have uncovered several curious puzzles whose solution requires attention to some major problems confronting all stu- dents of human cognition. These problems concern mental models, their representations, technological embodiments, ecological applications, social uses, and cultural sources. A discussion of these problems informs the larger issue of identifying the sources of uniformity and variation in human cognitive systems. It also makes an argument for the practicality and utility (and enjoyment) of investigations of non- artificial intelligence. Thursday, December 7, 1989 4:00 P.M. 280 Park Hall, Amherst Campus For further information, contact Erwin Segal, Department of Psychology, 716-636-3675, segal@cs.buffalo.edu, or William J. Rapaport, Department of Computer Science, 716-636-3193, rapaport@cs.buffalo.edu ------------------------------ To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 10:24:24 PST >From: ingrid@russell.Stanford.EDU (Ingrid Deiwiks) Subject: Seminar on Computers, Design, and Work - Wednesday, 6 December SEMINAR ON COMPUTERS, WORK, AND DESIGN The Negotiation of Expert Status William D. Rifkin Stanford University Wednesday, 6 December, 12:15 Ventura 17 Expert ability differs from expert status. I argue in this paper that the office of "expert" represents a provisional social status. This negotiated status emerges as a measure of authority in a relationship conducted between a relative specialist, who is a candidate for expert status, and someone who is effectively a client consulting the specialist for help in making a decision. The client, in attempting to evaluate whether the specialist has something credible and relevant to say, gauges the person, the specialist, as much as the utterance. The client's joint selection of whom and what to heed rests on understandings of the discourse and social structure of an issue-based community. This "issue arena," like other types of communities, is wrought through with internal stratification (here, based on occupational affiliation) and interest group conflict. In presenting this interpretation, I am engaging in an exercise in discourse design based on grounded theory. I am borrowing from literature on language and community and illustrating my points with examples from three years of observations of a local water board concerned with toxic waste issues. I am designing a discourse for laypersons to link their feelings of disenfranchisement as relative nonexperts to cultural understandings of occupational culture, status, and the ritual nature of relationships between specialists and clients. ------------------------------ To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 14:45 EDT >From: MMETEER@rcca.bbn.com Subject: AI Seminar [[ Note this is late, but I'm posting it anyway - CW ]] BBN STC Science Development Program AI Seminar Series Lecture SEMANTIC INTERPRETATION AND THE LEXICON: WHAT MAKES SENSE? Paul S. Jacobs AI Program, GE Research Schenectady, NY 12301 USA jacobs@crd.ge.com BBN STC, 2nd Floor Conference Room 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts Tuesday, December 5, 10:30 am Practical applications of natural language demand precision in semantic interpretation, highlighting the problems of lexical ambiguity and vagueness. The representation and discrimination of word meanings is thus a key issue for language analysis, motivated especially by the need for broad scale NL systems and by applications in information retrieval. A successful method for distinguishing word senses, however coarsely, could be a major contribution to natural language processing technology. Past research does not point to a successful strategy for sense discrimination, but it does reveal some naive approaches that won't work. The most obvious of these is the simple search for intersections or ``lexical coherence'' among word sense categories. This twenty-year-old approach is still popular and still destined to fail. Sense discrimination depends on context, and context is more than the combination of the words that appear together. Context comprises topic analysis, phrasal constructs, complex events, and linguistic and conceptual structures. This research focuses on accessing the power of these more complex contextual structures in identifying word senses using a lexicon of over 10,000 roots. Semantic and syntactic preferences, lexical relations, and other structural knowledge combine in our approach to help with generic sense discrimination. ------------------------------ To: nl-kr@cs.rpi.edu Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 09:47:18 PST >From: ingrid@russell.Stanford.EDU (Ingrid Deiwiks) Subject: Announcement of talks SEMINAR ON COMPUTERS, WORK, AND DESIGN The Negotiation of Expert Status William D. Rifkin Stanford University Wednesday, 6 December, 12:15 Ventura 17 Expert ability differs from expert status. I argue in this paper that the office of "expert" represents a provisional social status. This negotiated status emerges as a measure of authority in a relationship conducted between a relative specialist, who is a candidate for expert status, and someone who is effectively a client consulting the specialist for help in making a decision. The client, in attempting to evaluate whether the specialist has something credible and relevant to say, gauges the person, the specialist, as much as the utterance. The client's joint selection of whom and what to heed rests on understandings of the discourse and social structure of an issue-based community. This "issue arena," like other types of communities, is wrought through with internal stratification (here, based on occupational affiliation) and interest group conflict. In presenting this interpretation, I am engaging in an exercise in discourse design based on grounded theory. I am borrowing from literature on language and community and illustrating my points with examples from three years of observations of a local water board concerned with toxic waste issues. I am designing a discourse for laypersons to link their feelings of disenfranchisement as relative nonexperts to cultural understandings of occupational culture, status, and the ritual nature of relationships between specialists and clients. ____________ PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM Mencius and Hsun-tzu: Two Views of Human Agency Bryan Van Norden Department of Philosophy Stanford University Friday, 8 December 1989, 3:15 Bldg. 90, Room 92Q No abstract available. ____________ COMMONSENSE AND NONMONOTONIC REASONING SEMINAR Implementing Autoepistemic Logic on a Reason Maintenance System Kurt Konolige SRI International Monday, 11 December, 3:15 Margaret Jacks Hall 252 Recent work shows that a Reason Maintenance System (RMS) can be formalized as a type of autoepistemic theory. In this paper, we consider the inverse transformation: trying to implement an arbitrary autoepistemic theory as an RMS. In so doing, we provide a computationally attractive theorem-proving methodology for autoepistemic logic. ____________ SYNTAX WORKSHOP Switch-reference in Jiwarli (and elsewhere) Peter Austin La Trobe University Tuesday, 12 December, 7:30 CSLI, Cordura 100 Switch-reference is a syntactic device found in many languages whereby the subjects of two clauses are indicated to be coreferential (SS - same subject) or noncoreferential (DS - different subject). Typically, switch-reference is coded on the dependent clause verb, as in the following examples from Diyari (central Australia): (1) Ngathu nhinha nhayiyi yatha-rna I him see talk-SS "I see him as (I'm) talking" (2) Ngathu nhinha nhayiyi yatha-rnanhi I him see talk-DS "I see him as (he's) talking" Switch-reference has been discussed in the G-B literature by Finer 1985, Hale 1989, and Jeanne and Hale 1989 in terms of a binding relationship between the two clauses. In LFG, Simpson 1983 and Bresnan and Simpson 1983 discuss switch-reference in terms of a relation of anaphoric control. I will examine data from a number of Aboriginal languages, primarily Jiwarli from Western Australia, describing their switch-reference systems and discussing whether either the G-B or LFG accounts (or some other account) best deals with the systems found in these languages. The next workshop will be on 9 January 1990. ------------------------------ End of NL-KR Digest *******************