- From: Nick Arnett <narnett@verity.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:04:21 -0800
- To: M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk, Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
At 1:19 AM 11/3/94, Mike Piff wrote: >Where would "Theorem 3.2" come from? I'm befuddled at this point. "Theorem 3.2" seems to be a proper name for a particular structural element, rather than a lexical relationship. It occurred to me last night that "is a" is perhaps the worst example to use, since it doesn't add much more lexical information than any tagged element. For example, when you surround some text with blockquote tags, that's implicitly an "is a" lexical relationship. Things get interesting and more useful when the relationship isn't as direct, as in expressing the idea that a Cadillac is a type of General Motors automobile. Our experience also suggests that fuzzier relationships, such as "Bill Gates is closely related to Microsoft" and "multimedia is somewhat related to networking," are easier to build and maintain. (Our knowledgebases quantify those relationships, by the way; Gates and Microsoft might be a 0.9; multimedia and networking might be a 0.2.) Nick
Received on Friday, 4 November 1994 19:03:10 UTC