An approach toward answering English questions from text

Simmons, Robert F.; Burger, John F.; Long, Robert E.

doi:10.1145/1464291.1464329

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For him the fundamental notion is that of a "semantic network", defined essentially by the statement of relational triples of form aRb, where R is the name of a relation and a and b are the names of nodes in the network. Simmons work with this general formalism goes back to at least 1966 (Simmons et al, 1966) but, in its newer form with case formalism, it has been reported since 1970 (Simmons 1970b) (Simmons and Bruce 197 1) (Simmons and Slocum 1972). (Simmons 1973), and (Hendrix et al 1973) may reasonably be considered a further implementation of Simmons' methods.…”

Section: Sini Inonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Language Understanding Systems Within the A. I. Paradigm: A survey and Some Comparisons

Wilks¹

1974

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper surveys the major projects on the understanding of natural language that fall within what may now be called the artificial intelligence paradigm for natural language systems. Some space is devoted to arguing that the paradigm is now a reality and different in significant respects from the generative paradigm of present day linguistics. The comparisons between systems center around questions of the relative perspicuity of procedural and static representations; the advantages and disadvantages of developing systems over a period Survey and Some Comparisons

show abstract

Section: Sini Inonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Language Understanding Systems Within the A. I. Paradigm: A survey and Some Comparisons

Wilks¹

1974

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, some sort of more formal notation is substituted for the actual English sentences in the base of stored knowledge. This notation may take many different forms, such as "descr;ption lists" ( Raphael, 1968), "kernels" ( Simmons, 1966), "concept-relationconcept triples" (Simmons et al, 1966)) "data nodes" ( Quillian, 1969 ) , "rings" ( Thompson, 1966)) "relational operators" ( Tharp, 1969), etc. Each of these forms is designated for efficient use in a particular system, but at heart they are all doing the same thing-providing a notation for simple assertions of the sort described in Section 1.5.…”

Section: Limited Logic Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Natural Language

Thompson¹,

Winograd²

1974

Leonardo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a computer system for understanding English. The system answers questions, executes commands, and accepts information in an interactive English dialog. It is based on the belief that in modeling language understanding, we must deal in an integrated way with all of the aspects of languagesyntax, semantics, and inference. The system contains a parser, a recognition grammar of English, programs for semantic analysis, and a general problem solving system. We assume that a computer cannot deal reasonably with language unless it can understand the subject it is discussing. Therefore, the program is given a detailed model of a particular domain. In addition, the system has a simple model of its own mentality. It can remember and discuss its plans and actions as well as carrying them out. It enters into a dialog with a person, responding to English sentences with actions and English replies, asking for clarification when its heuristic programs cannot understand a sentence through the use of syntactic, semantic, contextual, and physical knowledge. Knowledge in the system is represented in the form of procedures, rather than tables of rules or lists of patterns. By developing special procedural representations for syntax, semantics, and inference, we gain flexibility and power. Since each piece of knowledge can be a procedure, it can call directly on any other piece of knowledge in the system.

show abstract

“…An even more common occurrence is when the two names are not synonyms but map onto the concept in different ways. For example, the words "buy" and "sell," to use Simmons' (1966) example, can be handled most easily if they refer to the same concept. «■ conceptual identity of "buying" and "sellinq" can he seen in the I following sentences: "He sold the girl two chairs.…”

Section: Concepts Are Not Quite Word-conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Processing Models and Computer Aids for Human Performance. Task 4: Studies of Human Memory and Language Processing

Collins¹,

Quillan²

1971

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An approach toward answering English questions from text

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Natural Language Understanding Systems Within the A. I. Paradigm: A survey and Some Comparisons

Natural Language Understanding Systems Within the A. I. Paradigm: A survey and Some Comparisons

Understanding Natural Language

Information Processing Models and Computer Aids for Human Performance. Task 4: Studies of Human Memory and Language Processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About