Worked on the GrGen-Graph-Models today.
So far I've started to get familiar with the procedures necessary to work the tool. And yes, I have to admit, it is fast.
I already know which data to fish from the SALE-Models we already pushed into GrGen. The problem is, that GrGen is not behaving deterministically in any way. I guess I'll have to ring the maintainer of the project tomorrow to find how this could be resolved.
If I can answer all those questions by tomorrow evening, I see a very good chance that the paper for the ICSC could become a success. I am sure we have to start writing on it at the end of this week, otherwise, the night-shift might kill us (again).
So long, I am out of here for today, gotta be back early tomorrow morning.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Using reasoning to disambiguate natural language
Natural language always is ambiguous. There is no denying the fact.
Now when transforming specifications written in natural language into UML, one might want to make sure, that misinterpretations and misunderstandings are as seldom as possible.
But what if the words "user" and "client" are used to describe the same object? How might a electronic system grasp the similarity and understand? How am I telling the system to combine the actions (or methods if you want to call it so) and properties into one object (or class, if we stayed in OO-Code-speak).
Using an underlying ontology we will try to show that specifications can be made better, proper and severely more elaborated with the "insight" of common sense.
The first approach on this work has to be finished in the next 4 weeks since we do want to publish this on the ICSC conference 2008. Once again - no time to lean back. Full steam ahead!
For this week I will try to get the necessary information from the system.
Next weeks job will be to integrate the APIs so that the graph modeling framework GrGen we're using to transform annotated text into UML will be able to take advantage of the common sense we revived.
As always - it stays exciting!
Now when transforming specifications written in natural language into UML, one might want to make sure, that misinterpretations and misunderstandings are as seldom as possible.
But what if the words "user" and "client" are used to describe the same object? How might a electronic system grasp the similarity and understand? How am I telling the system to combine the actions (or methods if you want to call it so) and properties into one object (or class, if we stayed in OO-Code-speak).
Using an underlying ontology we will try to show that specifications can be made better, proper and severely more elaborated with the "insight" of common sense.
The first approach on this work has to be finished in the next 4 weeks since we do want to publish this on the ICSC conference 2008. Once again - no time to lean back. Full steam ahead!
For this week I will try to get the necessary information from the system.
Next weeks job will be to integrate the APIs so that the graph modeling framework GrGen we're using to transform annotated text into UML will be able to take advantage of the common sense we revived.
As always - it stays exciting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)