[Edu-sig] Natural Language Programming

[Arthur_Siegel@rsmi.com]

One last effort - 

Anyone who has worked at  all with 3d graphics knows that
a pretty standard vocabulary has developed, by a process
of natural selection, over numbers of years.

99.5% (please don't quote me on the statistic and find other 
exceptions) of the 3d graphics world has settled on a vocabulary.
Presumably lots of very smart people where involved in the 
trial and error process. And what we have is what I suspect is
exactly what has been determined to be the most natural
language (in standard English) necessary to do a particular
job, while avoiding ambiguities and other evils.  Could certain
vocabulary words turned out diffierently.  Probably. But the
point is its done, and without *COMPELLING* evidence there
is no reason to change it.   

I would serious suggest that anyone with a deep interest
in the subject of natual language technology study the development.
of 3d vocabulary. Because in the end what we are left with is 
substanital (though not perfectly - we do go to third and fourth 
defintions of standard English words) natural language.

And vocabulary is about nothing if it is not about communication.
The population of interested parties settling - by some natural process
intimately tied to the entire issue of language development, and well
beyond anything I understand - is the gist of the process.

After that process is substantially complete - the Dr. Moreau constructs
simply struggle and die.

And every game has its vocabulary. Monopoly has its vocabulary. 
Pokemon has its vocabulary. Bridge (the card game() has its vocabulary.
If you are not using the vocabulary, you are not playing the game.

One would think I was simply being obnoxious if I asked what the
folks interested in natural langauge music programming are going
to do with Alice's discovery about the word "scale".  And I am sure
someone could stretch for and find a fine distinction.  But just a fine
one.

But why do I get emotional.

I have a simple premise.  If something is easy for me to comprehend, it
is easy for the next guy.  I am not sure who I would be if I thought
otherwise.
Not someone I would like very much.

By calling the next guy stupid, you're calling me stupid because in some
other area of endeavor I am going to be the novice. And I am not even
going to have the opportunity to tell you - "translate", "move" - got it,
next.

If someone is going to take action and espouse what loops (that they are in) 
someone else needs to be left out of for their own good- and if you are going 
near 3d 
graphics, its established vocabulary is a loop - I want *COMPELLING* 
evidence. 

Because it seems clear that Alice is making itself important at some expense
that I will not pay without "COMPELLING* evidence.

That is a postion. Politics if one needs to call it that. It is irrational
in the sense that I don't even offer anybody a "reason" - but only in that 
sense.   

And as our technological society evolves it will become a more
and more important issue, IMO.

So yes, Alice espouses a position without offering my standard of 
compelling evidence.  I therefore reject it and try to limit it's influence.

Its all simple common sense, to me.  And I suspect only in a few select
arenas would it be seen as otherwise - this being one.

And to the folks who want to tell me I fundamentally misunderstand Alice,
I say I am wrong about what the problem with Alice is.  The problem
with Alice is that is too easy for someone to fundamentally misundertand it. 

But I'm pretty much back to where I was.

ART