| { | |
| "paper_id": "H86-1013", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T03:35:03.332102Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "COMMONSENSE METAPHYSICS AND LEXICAL SEMANTICS", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hobbs", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "William", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Croft", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Todd", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Davies", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Douglas", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Edwards", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kenneth", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Laws", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": {}, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "H86-1013", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the TACITUS project for using commonsense knowledge in the understanding of texts \u2022bout mechanical devices and their failures, we have been developing various commonsense theories that are needed to mediate between the way we talk about the behavior of such devices and causal models of their operation. Of central importance in this effort is the axiomatization of what might be called \"commonsense metaphysics'. This includes a number of areas that figure in virtually every domain of discourse, such as scalar notions, granularity, time, space, material, physical objects, causality, functionality, force, and shape. Our approach to lexical semantics is then to construct core theories of each of these areas, and then to define, or at least characterize, \u2022 large number of lexical items in terms provided by the core theories. In the TACITUS system, processes for solving pragrnatics problems posed by \u2022 text will use the knowledge base consisting of these theories in conjunction with the logical forms of the sentences in the text to produce an interpretation. In this paper we do not stress these interpretation processes; this is another, important aspect of the TACITUS project, and it will be described in subsequent papers.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This work represents a convergence of research in lexical semantics in linguistics and efforts in AI to encode commonsense knowledge. Lexical semanticist* over the years have developed formalisms of increasing adequacy for encoding word meaning, progressing from simple sets of features (Katz and Fodor, 1963) to notations for predicateargument structure (Lakoff, 1972; Miller and Johnson-Laird, 1976 ), but the early attempts still limited to world knowledge and assumed only very restricted sorts of processing. Workers in computational linguistics introduced inference (Rieger, 1974; Schank, 1975 ) and other complex cognitive processes (Herskovits, 1982) into our understanding of the role of word meaning. Recently, linguists have given greater attention to the cognitive processes that would operate on their representations (e.g., Talmy, 1983; Croft, 1986) . Independently, in AI an effort arose to encode large amounts of commonsense knowl-edge (Hayes, 1979; Hobbs and Moore, 1985; Hobbs et al. 1985) . The research reported here represents a convergence of these various developments. By developing core theories of several fundamental phenomena and defining lexical items within these theories, using the full power of predicate calculus, we awe able to cope with complex-Sties of word meaning that have hitherto escaped lexical semanticists, within a framework that gives full scope to the planning and reasoning processes that manipulate representations of word meaning.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 287, | |
| "end": 309, | |
| "text": "(Katz and Fodor, 1963)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 355, | |
| "end": 369, | |
| "text": "(Lakoff, 1972;", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 370, | |
| "end": 400, | |
| "text": "Miller and Johnson-Laird, 1976", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 572, | |
| "end": 586, | |
| "text": "(Rieger, 1974;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 587, | |
| "end": 599, | |
| "text": "Schank, 1975", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF18" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 640, | |
| "end": 658, | |
| "text": "(Herskovits, 1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 838, | |
| "end": 850, | |
| "text": "Talmy, 1983;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF21" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 851, | |
| "end": 863, | |
| "text": "Croft, 1986)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 953, | |
| "end": 966, | |
| "text": "(Hayes, 1979;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 967, | |
| "end": 989, | |
| "text": "Hobbs and Moore, 1985;", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 990, | |
| "end": 1008, | |
| "text": "Hobbs et al. 1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In constructing the core theories we are attempting to adhere to several methodological principles. I. One should aim for characterization of concepts. rather than definition. One cannot generally expect to find necessary and sulBcient conditions for a concept. The most we tun hope for is to find a number of necessary conditions and \u2022 number of sufficient conditions. This amounts to ~ying that \u2022 great many predicates are primitive, but primitives that are highly interrelated with the rest of the knowledge base.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2. One lhould determine the minimal structure necesury for \u2022 concept to make sense. In efforts to axiomatize some area, there are two positions one may take, exemplified by set theory and by group theory. In axiomatizing set theory, one attempts to capture exactly some concept one ham strong intuitions about. If the axiomatization turns out to have unexpected models, this exposes an inadequacy. In group theory, by contrast, one characterizes an abstract clam of structures. If there turn out to be unexpected models, this is a serendipitous discovery of a new phenomenon that we can reason about using an old theory. The pervffisive character of metaphor in natural language discourse shows that our commonsense theories of the world ought to be much more like group theory than set theory. By seeking minimal structures in axiomatizing concepts, we optimize the possibilities of using the theories in metaphorical and analogical contexts. This principle is illustrated below in the section on regions. One consequence of this principle is that our approach will seem more syntactic than semantic. We have concentrated more on specifying axioms than on constructing models. Our view is that the chief role of models in our effort is for proving the consistency and independence of sets of axioms, and for showing their adequacy. As an example of the last point, many of the spatial and temporal theories we construct are intended at least to have Euclidean space or the real numbers as one model, and a subclass of graph-theoretical structures as other models.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "3. A balance must be struck between attempting to cover all cases and aiming only for the prototypical cases. In general, we have tried to cover as many cases as poesable with an elegant axiomatization, in line with the two previous principles, but where the formalization begins to look baroque, we assume that higher processes will suspend some inferences in the marginal cases. We assume that inferences will be drawn in a controlled fashion. Thus, every outr~, highly context-dependent counterexample need not be accounted for, and to a certain extent, definitions can be geared specifically for a prototype.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "4. Where competing ontologies suggest themselves in \u2022 domain, one should attempt to construct a theory that accommodates both. Rather than commit oneself to adopting one set of primitives rather than another, one should show how each set of primitives can be characterized in terms of the other. Generally, each of the ontologies is useful for different purposes, and it is convenient to be able to appeal to both. Our treatment of time iUustrates this.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "5. The theories one constructs should be richer in axioms than in theorems. In mathematics, one expectsto state half a dozen axioms and prove dozens of theorems from them. In encoding commonsense knowledge it seems to be just the opposite. The theorems we seek to prove on the basis of these axioms are theorems \u2022bout specific situations which are to be interpreted, in particular, theorems about a text that the system is attempting to understand. 6. One should \u2022void falling into \"black holes'. There are a few \"mysterious\" concepts which crop up repeatedly in the formalization of commonsense metaphysics. Among these are \"relevant* (that is, relevant to the task at hand) and \"normative\" {or conforming to some norm or pattern). To insist upon giving a satisfactory analysis of these before using them in analyzing other concepts is to crom the event horizon that separates lexical semantics from philosophy. On the other hand, our experience suggests that to \u2022void their use entirely is crippling; the lexical semantics of \u2022 wide variety of other terms depends upon them. Instead, we have decided to leave them minimally analyzed for the moment and use them without scruple in the analysis of other commonsense concepts. This approach will allow us to accumulate many examples of the use of these mysterious concepts, and in the end, contribute to their successful analysis. The use of these concepts appears below in the discussions of the words \"immediately\", \"sample', and \"operate\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We chose as an initial target problem to encode the commonsense knowledge that underlies the concept of \"wear\", as in \u2022 part of a device wearing out. Our aim was to define \"we\u2022.r\" in ternm of predicates characterized elsewhere in the knowledge base and to infer consequences of wear. For something to wear, we decided, is for it to lose imperceptible bits of material from its surface due to abrasive action over time. One goal,which we have not yet achieved, is to be able to prove as a theorem that since the shape of a part of \u2022 mechanical device is often functional and since loss of material can result in \u2022 change of shape, wear of a part of \u2022 device can result in the failure of the device as a whole. In addition, as we have proceded, we have characterized a number of words found in a set of target texts, as it has become possible.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are encoding the knowledge as axioms in what is for the most part \u2022 first-order logic, described in Hobbs (1985a) , although quantification over predicates is sometimes convenient. In the formalism there is a nominalization operator \" ' \" for reifying events and conditions, as expressed in the following axiom schema:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 103, | |
| "end": 116, | |
| "text": "Hobbs (1985a)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Introduction", | |
| "sec_num": "1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "That is, p is true of z if and only if there is a condition e of p being true of z and e exists in the real world.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0'*)~(*) E (3.)~(e, .) ^ E~ot(e)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In our implementation so Ear, we have been proving simple theorems from our axioms using the CG5 theoremprover developed by Mark Stickel (1982) , but we are only now beginning to use the knowledge base in text processinf.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 129, | |
| "end": 143, | |
| "text": "Stickel (1982)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF20" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0'*)~(*) E (3.)~(e, .) ^ E~ot(e)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There is a notational convention used below that deserves some explanation. It has frequently been noted that relational words in natural language can take only certain types of words as their arguments. These are usually described as selectional constraints. The same is true of pred-icJttm in our knowledge base. They are expressed below by ruin of the form p(*, y) : .(*, y)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Requirements on Arguments of Predicates", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This means that for p even to make sense applied to r and If, it must be the case that r is true of z and y. The logical import of this rule is that wherever there is an axiom of the form 0'*,v)p(.,y) D q(.,.)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Requirements on Arguments of Predicates", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "this is really to be read as", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Requirements on Arguments of Predicates", | |
| "sec_num": "2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The checking of selectional constraints, therefore, falls out as a by-product of other logical operations: the constraint r(z, y) must be verified if anything else is to be proven from p(z, ~).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(vz, y)p(z,~) ^ r(z,,) D q(z,y)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The simplest example of such an r(z, If) is a conjunction of sort constraints r,(z) ^ r,(y). Our approach is a generalization of this, because much more complex requirements can be placed on the arguments. Consider, for example, the verb \"range\". if z ranges from If to :, there must be a scale s that includes It and z, and z must be a set of entries that are located at various places on the scale. This can be represented as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(vz, y)p(z,~) ^ r(z,,) D q(z,y)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "range(z, If, :) : (3.}.eels(.} ^ If E \u2022 ^ z E \u2022 ^ .st(z) ^ (vu)lu E : 3 (3v)v e \u2022 ^ ~(n, v)] 3", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(vz, y)p(z,~) ^ r(z,,) D q(z,y)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The Knowledge Base", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(vz, y)p(z,~) ^ r(z,,) D q(z,y)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "At the foundation of the knowledge base is an axiomatizw tion of set theory. It follows the standard Zermelo-Frankel approach, except that there is no Axiom of Infinity.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Sets and Granularity", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Since so many concepts used in discourse are $q'aindependent, a theory of granularity is also fundamental (see Hobbs 1985b) . A grain is defined in terms of an indistinguishability relation, which is reflexive and symmetric, but not necessarily transitive. One grain can be a reJ~nemeal of another with the obvious definition. The most refined grain is the identity grain, i.e., the one in which every two distinct elements are distinguishable. One possible relationship between two grains, one of which is z refinement of the other, is what we call an \"Archimedean relation', after the Archimedean property of real numbers. Intuitively, if enough events occur that are imperceptible at the coarser grain 9* but perceptible at the \u00a7ner grain Ih, then the aggregate will eventually be.perceptible at the coarser grain. This is an important property in phenomena 1rob. ject to the Heap Paradox. Wear, for instance, eventually has significant consequences.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 111, | |
| "end": 123, | |
| "text": "Hobbs 1985b)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Sets and Granularity", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A great many of the most common words in English havre scales as their subject matter. This includes many prepmb tions, the most common adverbs, comparatives, and many abstract verbs. When spatial vocabulary is used metaphorically, it is generally the scalar aspect of space that carries over to the target domain. A scale is defined as a set of elements, together with a partial ordering and a granular,. ity (or an indistinguishability relation). The partial ordering and the indistinguishability relation are consistent with each other.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scales", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is useful to have an adjacency relation between points on a scale, and there are a number of ways we could introduce it. We could simply take it to be primitive; in a scale having a distance function, we could define two points to be adjacent when the distance between them is less than some ~; finally, we could define adjacency in terms of the grain-size:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "fvz, y.,}a~(z, r.') =-", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3 :), ~, ^, ~ If ^ -,[z ~ If],", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Two important possible properties of scales are connectedness and denseness. We can say that two elements of a scale are connected by a chain of adj relations: ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "EQUATION", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 0, | |
| "end": 8, | |
| "text": "EQUATION", | |
| "ref_id": "EQREF", | |
| "raw_str": "(VZ. If. J)cmmeded(z. If. e) _= \u2022 dj(z, If, .) v", | |
| "eq_num": "(" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(V,}den,e(,) E fVz, If, <)z E \u2022 ^ If E. ^ order(<, s) ^ z < If D (3 :}(. < z ^ : < If) v (~a z)(z ~ : ^ \u2022 ~ y)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This captures the commonsense notion of continuity.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A subscale of a scale has as its elements a subset of the elements of the scale and has as its partial ordering and its grain the partial ordering and the grain of the scale. An interval can be defined as a connected subscale:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(Vi)imftq~el(i) m (3.)scale(e) ^ nb.eaiz(i, .) ^ ,connected(i)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The relations between time intervals that Allen and Kauts (1985) have defined can be defined in a straightforward manner in the approach presented here, applied to intervth in general.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A concept closely related to Scales is that of a \"cycle'. This is a system which has a natural ordering locally but contains a loop globally. Examples include the color wheel, clock times, and geographical locations ordered by \"east of.. %%'o have axiomatized cycles iri terms of a ternary /asfween relation, whose axioms parallel the axioms for a partial ordering.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The figure-ground relationship is of fundamental importance in language. We encode this with the primitive predicate af. The minimal structure that seems to be necessary for something to be a ground is that of a scale; hence, this is a selectional constraint on the arguments of at.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "0fz.if.z)z<yAif~z D z<zVz~z", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "At this point, we are already in \u2022 position to define some fairly complex words. As an illustration, we give the example of \"range* as in \"z ranges from It to z\": A very important scale is the linearly ordered scale of numbers. We do not plan to reason axiomatically about numbers, but it is useful in natural language processing to have encoded a few facts about numbers. For example, \u2022 set has a cardinality which is an element of the number scale.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "at(z, ~} : (3 s}y \u2022 s ^ scale(s)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(V=, V", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "at(z, ~} : (3 s}y \u2022 s ^ scale(s)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Verticality is a concept that would be most properly analyzed in the section on space, but it is a property that many other scales have acquired metaphorically, for whatever reason. The number scale is one of these. Even in the absence of an analysis of verticality, it is \u2022 useful property to have as a primitive in lexical semantics.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "at(z, ~} : (3 s}y \u2022 s ^ scale(s)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The word \"high* is a vague term that asserts an entity is in the upper region of some scale. It requires that the scale be a vertical one, such as the number scale. The verticality requirement distinguishes \"high* from the more general term'very*; we can say \"very hard* but not \"highly hard'. The phrase \"highly planar\" sounds all right because the high register of \"planar* suggests a quantifiable, scientific accuracy, whereas the low register of \"fiat* makes \"highly fiat* sound much worse.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "at(z, ~} : (3 s}y \u2022 s ^ scale(s)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The test of any definition is whether it allows one to draw the appropriate inferences. In our target texts, the phrase \"high usage* occurs. Usage is a set of using events, and the verticality requirement on \"high\" forces us to coerce the phrase into \"a high or large number of using events\". Combining this with an axiom that says that the use of \u2022 mechanical device involves the likelihood of abrasive events, as defined below, and with the definition of \"wear\" in terms of abrasive events, we should be able to conclude the likelihood of wear.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "at(z, ~} : (3 s}y \u2022 s ^ scale(s)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Time: Two Ontologles There are two possible ontoiogies for time. In the first, the one most acceptable to the mathematically minded, there is a time line, which is a scale having some topological structure. We can stipulate the time line to be linearly ordered (although it is not in approaches that build ignorance of relative times into the representation of time (e.g., Hobbs, 1974) nor in approaches using branching futures (e.g., McDermott, 1985) ), and we can stipulate it to be dense (although it is not in the situation calculus). We take before to be the ordering on the time line: We allow both instants and intervals of time. Most events occur at some instant or during some interval. In this approach, nearly every predicate takes a time argument.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 373, | |
| "end": 385, | |
| "text": "Hobbs, 1974)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 435, | |
| "end": 451, | |
| "text": "McDermott, 1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In the second ontology, the one that seems to be more deeply rooted in language, the world consists of a large number of more or less independent processes, or histories, or sequences of events. There is a primitive relation change between conditions. Thus, can.go(e,, ~} ^ p(e,, z} ^ \u00a5(e:, z) says that there is a change from the condition el of p being true of z to the condition ez of q being true of z.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 258, | |
| "end": 293, | |
| "text": "can.go(e,, ~} ^ p(e,, z} ^ \u00a5(e:, z)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The time line in this ontology is then an artificial construct, \u2022 regular sequence of imagined abstract events-think of them as ticks of a clock in the National Bureau of Standards--to which other events can be related. The change ontology seems to correspond to the way we e\u00d7perience the world. We recognize relations of causality, change of state, and copresence among events and conditions. When events are not related in these ways, judgments of relative time must be mediated by copresence relations between the events and events on a clock and change of state relations on the clock.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The predicate change possesses & limited transitivity.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There has been \u2022 change from Reagan being an actor to Reagan being President, even though he was governor in between. But we probably do not want to say there has been \u2022 change from Reagan being an actor to Margaret Thatcher being Prime Minister, even though the second comes after the first.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We can say that times, viewed in this ontology as events,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "always have a change relation between them. That is, if z is p at time tl and q at a later time t:, then there has been a change of state from one to the other. Time arguments in predications can be viewed as abbreviations:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.3", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The word \"move', or the predica~ move, (as in \"z moves from g to z') can tbe\u2022 be defined equivale (v :, It, :)mo,,e(., y, .) ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 98, | |
| "end": 124, | |
| "text": "(v :, It, :)mo,,e(., y, .)", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(v=,t)p(=,t} -= (3e)f(e,:) ^ ut(e, t)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "m (3 is, t,)at(z, y, t, ) ^ at(z, z, t2) ^ before(tt, f,)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(v=,t)p(=,t} -= (3e)f(e,:) ^ ut(e, t)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In English and apparently all other natural languages, both ontologies are represented i\u2022 the lexicon. The time line ontology is found i\u2022 clock and calendar terms, tense systems of verbs, and in the deictic temporal locatives such as \"yesterday*, \"today*, \"tomorrow*, \"last night\", sad so on. The change ontology is exhibited in mvst verbs, and in temporal clausal connectives. The universal presence of both classes of lexical items and grammatical markers in natural languages requires a theory which can accommodate both o\u2022tologies, illustrating the importance of methodological principle 4.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(v=,t)p(=,t} -= (3e)f(e,:) ^ ut(e, t)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Among temporal connectives, the word \"while\" presents interesting problems. I\u2022 \"st while e~', s2 must be an event occurring over \u2022 time interval; et must be an event and may occur either at a point or over an interval. One% first guess is that the point or interval for et must be included in the interval for ca. However, there are cases, such as it rained while I was in Philadelphia. or The electricity should be off while the switch is being repaired.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(v=,t)p(=,t} -= (3e)f(e,:) ^ ut(e, t)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "which suggest the reading \"h is included in el*. We came to the conclusion that one can infer \u2022o more than that es and e, overlap, and any tigh(er constraints result from implicatures from background knowledge. The word \"immediately* also presents a number of problems. It requires its argument e to be an ordering relation between two entities z and g on some scale s. : (3 z, y, s)less-lhan'(e, z, It, s However, this will only work if we r~trict z to be a relevant entity. For example, in the sentence", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 370, | |
| "end": 405, | |
| "text": ": (3 z, y, s)less-lhan'(e, z, It, s", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(v=,t)p(=,t} -= (3e)f(e,:) ^ ut(e, t)", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We disengaged the compressor immediately after the alarm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "immediate(e}", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "the implication is that \u2022o event that could damage the compressor occurred between the alarm and the disengagement, since the text is about equipment failure.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "immediate(e}", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The notion of dimension has been made precise in linear al-|ebr4. Since the concept of a region is used metaphorically u well ms i\u2022 the spatial sense, however, we were concerned to determine the minimal structure that a system requires for it to make sense to call it a space of more than one dimension. For a two.dimensional space, tt~re must be a scale, or partial ordering, for each dimension. Moreover, the two scales must be independent, in that the order of elements o\u2022 one scale can not be determined from their order on the other. Note that this does \u2022or allow <ffi to be simply the reverse of ~t. A\u2022 u\u2022surprising co\u2022sequence of this definition is that the minima] example of a two*dimensional space consists of three points (three points determine a plane}, e.g., the points A, B, ud C, where", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Structure", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This is Illustrated in Figure 1 . The dimensional scales are apparently found in all nat-\u2022 rat languages i\u2022 relevant domains. The familiar threedimensional space of common sense is defined by the three scale pairs \"up-down\", \"front-back\", and \"left-right'; the two*dimensional plane of the commonsense conception of the earth's surface is represented by the two scale pairs \"north-south\" and \"east-west\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 23, | |
| "end": 31, | |
| "text": "Figure 1", | |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF3" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A <t B, A <t C, C <, A, A <z B.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The simplest, although not the only, way to define adjacency in the space is as adjacency on both scales: By picking the scales and defining adjacency right, we can talk about points of contact between communicational networks, systems of knowledge, and other metaphorical domains. By picking the scales to be the real line and defining adjacency in terms of C-neighborhoods, we get Euclidean space and can talk about contact between physical objects.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A <t B, A <t C, C <, A, A <z B.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(\u00a5 z,", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "A <t B, A <t C, C <, A, A <z B.", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Physical objects and materials must be distinguished, just as they are apparently distinguished in every natural language, by means of the count noun -mass noun distinction. A physical object is not a bit of material, but rather is comprised of a bit of material at any given time. Thus, rivers and human bodies are physical objects, even though their material constitution changes over time. This distinction also allows us to talk about an object losing material through wear and still being the same object.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Material", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We will say that an entity b is a bit of material by means ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Material", | |
| "sec_num": "3.5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "At some future point in our work, this may emerge as a consequence of a richer theory of cohesion and force. The cohesion of materials is also a primitive property, for we must distinguish between a bump on the surface of u object tad \u2022 chip merely lying on the surface. Cohesion depends on \u2022 primitive relation bond between particles of material, paralleling the role of adj in regions. The relation attached is defined as the transitive closure of bond. A topology of cohesion is built up in a manner analogous to the topology of regions. In addition, we have encoded the relation that bond bears to motion, i.e. that bonded bits remain adjacent and that one moves when the other does, tad the relation of bond to force, i.e. that there is a characteristic force that breaks a bond' in a given material.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "t(y, ~))", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Different materials react in different ways to forces of various strengths. Materials subjected to force exhibit or fail to exhibit several invariance properties, proposed by Hager (1985) . If the material is shape-invariant with respect to \u2022 particular force, its shape remains the same. If it is topologically invariant, particles that are adjacent remain adjacent. Shape invariance implies topological invariance. Subject to forces of a certain strength or degree dl, \u2022 material ceases being shape-invariant. fermi. While w\u00a2 should not expect to be able to define various material terms, like \"metal\" and \"ceramic', we can certainly chanu:terize many of their properties with this vocabulary.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 175, | |
| "end": 187, | |
| "text": "Hager (1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "t(y, ~))", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Because of its iavariance properties, material interacts with containment tad motion. The word \"clog\" illustrates thil. The predicate clog is a three-place relation: z clogs agaiust the flow of z. It is the obstruction by z of :% motion through It, but with the selectional restriction that \u2022 must be something that can flow, such is a liquid, gas, or powder. If a rope is passing through a hole in a board, and \u2022 knot in the rope prevents it from going through, we do not say that the hole is clogged. On the other hand, there do not seem to be any selectional constraints on z. In particular, z can be identical with z: glue, sand, or molasses can clog a passageway against its own flow. We can speak of clogging where the obstruction of flow is not complete, but it must be thought of as \"nearly\" complete.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "t(y, ~))", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Attachment within materials is one variety of caumd connection. In general, if two entities z and W are causally connected with respect to some behavior p of z, then whenever p happens to z, there is some corresponding behavior q that happens to y. In the case of attachment, p and q are both move. A particularly common variety of causal connection between two entities is one mediated by the motion of a third entity from one to the other. (This might be called a *vector boson* connection.) Photons mediating the connection between the sun and our eyes, rain drops connecting a state of the clouds with the wetness of our skin and clothes, a virus being transmitted from one person to another, and utterances passing between people are all examples of such causal connections. Barriers, openings, and penetration are all with respect to paths of causal connection.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Causal Connection", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6.1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The concept of \"force\" is axiomatized, in a way consistent with strength dl and b resists a's action with strength d2. We can infer motion from facts about relative strength. This treatment can also be specialized to Newtonian force, where we have not merely movement, but acceleration. In addition, in spaces in which orientation is defined, forces can have an orientation, and a version of the Parallelogram of Forces Law can be encoded. Finally, force interacts with shape in ways characterized by words like \"stretch*, \"compress\", \"bend*, \"twist*, and \"shear\".", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Force", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "An important concept is the notion of a \"system\", which is a set of entities, a set of their properties, and a set of relations among them. A common kind of system is one in which the entities are events and conditions and the relations are causal and enabling relations. A mechanical device can be described ~ such a system--in a sense, in terms of the plan it executes in its operation. The function of various parts and of conditions of those parts is then the role they play in this system, or plan.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Systems and Functionality", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The intransitive sense of \"operate', as in", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Systems and Functionality", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The diesel was operating.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Systems and Functionality", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "involves systems and functionality. If an entity z operates, then there must be a larger system s of which z is a pap. t. The entity z itself is a system with parts. These parts undergo normative s~te changes, thereby causing z to undergo normative state changes, thereby causing z to produce an effect with a normative function in the larger system a. The concept of \"normative* is discussed below.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Systems and Functionality", | |
| "sec_num": "3.6.3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have been approaching the problem of characterizing shape from \"a number of different angles. The classical treatment of shape is via the notion of \"similarity* in Euclidean geometry, and in Hilbert's formal reconstruction of Euclidean geometry (Hilbert, 1902} the key primitive corn cept seems to be that of \"congruent angles*. Therefore, we first sought to develop a theory of \"orientation\". The shape of an object can then be characterized in terms of changes in orientation of a tangent as one moves about on the surface of the object, as is done in vision research (e.g., Zahn and Roskies, 1972) . In all of this, since \"shape\" can be used loosely and metaphorically, one question we are asking is whether some minimal, abstract structure can be found in which the notion of \"shape* makes sense. Conaider, for instance, a graph in which one scale is discrete, or even unordered. Accordingly, we have been examining * number of examples, asking when it seems right ;o say two structures have different shapes.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 248, | |
| "end": 263, | |
| "text": "(Hilbert, 1902}", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 580, | |
| "end": 603, | |
| "text": "Zahn and Roskies, 1972)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF23" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Shape", | |
| "sec_num": "8.6.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have also examined the interactions of shape and functionality (cf. Davis, 1984) . What seems to be crucial is how the shape of an obstacle constrains the motion of a substance or of an object of a particular shape (cf. Shoham, 1985) . Thus, a funnel concentrates the flow of a liquid, and similarly, a wedge concentrates force. A box pushed against a ridge in the floor will topple, and a wheel is, limiting case of continuous toppling.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 71, | |
| "end": 83, | |
| "text": "Davis, 1984)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 223, | |
| "end": 236, | |
| "text": "Shoham, 1985)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Shape", | |
| "sec_num": "8.6.4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "For z to hit If is for z to move into contact with y with some force.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.T Hitting, Abrasion, Wear, and Rehated Concepts", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The basic scenario for an abrasive event is that there is u impinging bit of material m which hits an object o and by doing so removes a pointlike bit of material be from the surface Wear can occur by means of a large collection of abrasive events distributed over time as well as space (so that there may be no time at which enough abrasive events occur to count as an abrasion). Thus, the link between wear and abrasion is via the common notion of abrasive events, not via a definition of wear in terms of abrasion.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "3.T Hitting, Abrasion, Wear, and Rehated Concepts", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The concept \"widely distributed\" concerns systems. If z is distributed in tl, then I/ is \u2022 system tad z is \u2022 set of entities which are located at components of y. For the distribution to be wide, most of the elements of a partition of II determined independently of the distribution must contain components which have'elements of z at thelm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(re, m, o)wear'(e, z, o) =-(3bs}(Ve,)[es \u2022 e D (3bo)be E bs} ^ abr-e~ent'(et,m,o, be)] ^ (3 i)[interval(1) ^ wldelpdi.tributed(e, i)]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The word ``wear\" is one of a large class of other events involving cumulative, gradual loss of material -events described by words like \"chip*, \"corrode', \"file', \"erode*, \"rub*, \"sand\", \"grind*, \"weather\", \"rust', \"tarnish', \"eat \u2022 way*, \"rot*, and \"decay*. All of these lexica] items can now be defined as variations on the definition of \"wear*, since we have built up the axiomatizatioas underlying \"wear\". We are now in a position to characterize the entire class. We will illustrate this by defining two different types of variants of \"wear* -\"chip\" and \"corrode'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(re, m, o)wear'(e, z, o) =-(3bs}(Ve,)[es \u2022 e D (3bo)be E bs} ^ abr-e~ent'(et,m,o, be)] ^ (3 i)[interval(1) ^ wldelpdi.tributed(e, i)]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "\"Chip* differs from \"wear\" in three ways: the bit of material removed in one abrasive event is larger (it need not be point-like), it need not happen because of a material hitting against the object, and \"chip* does not require (though it does permit) a large collection of such events: one can say that some object is chipped if there is only one .chip in it. Thus, we slightly alter the definition of abr-evenl to accommodate these changes: ire, m, o, be)chif (e, m, o, be} (3 t, b, s, be, e,, e:, e,) at(e, t) ^consists-of(o, b, t) ^ surface(s, b) ^ part(be, s) ^ changd(e, el, e:) ^ attached'(el, be, b) A not'(e:, el ) \"Corrode\" differs from \"wear* in that the bit of material is chemically transformed as well as being detached by the contact event; in fact, in some way the chemical transformation causes the detachment. This can be captured by adding (3 t, b, s, be, e,, e,, e,) \"Corrode* itself may be defined in a parallel fashion to \"wear*, substituting corrode-event for abr-event.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 476, | |
| "end": 503, | |
| "text": "(3 t, b, s, be, e,, e:, e,)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 859, | |
| "end": 886, | |
| "text": "(3 t, b, s, be, e,, e,, e,)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(re, m, o)wear'(e, z, o) =-(3bs}(Ve,)[es \u2022 e D (3bo)be E bs} ^ abr-e~ent'(et,m,o, be)] ^ (3 i)[interval(1) ^ wldelpdi.tributed(e, i)]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "All of this suggests the generalization that abrasive events, chipping and corrode events all detach the bit in question, and that we may describe all of these as detachtag events. We can then generalize the above axiom about abrasive events resulting in loss of material to the following axiom about detaching: ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(re, m, o)wear'(e, z, o) =-(3bs}(Ve,)[es \u2022 e D (3bo)be E bs} ^ abr-e~ent'(et,m,o, be)] ^ (3 i)[interval(1) ^ wldelpdi.tributed(e, i)]", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Many of the concepts we are investigating have driven us inexorably to the problems of what is meant by \"relevant* and by \"normative*. We do not pretend to have solved these problems. But for each of these concepts we do have the beginnings of an account that can play a role in analysis, if not yet in implementation. Our view of relevance, briefly stated, is that something is relevant to some goal if it is a part of a plan to achieve that goal. [A formal treatment of a similar view is given in Davies and Russell, 1986.) We can illustrate this with an example involving the word \"sample*. If a bit of material z is a sample of another bit of material y, then z is a part of y, and moreover, there are relevant properties p and q such that it is believed that if p is true of z then q is true of y. That is, looking at the properties of the sample tells us something important about the properties of the whole. Frequently, p and q are the same property. In our target texts, the following sentence occurs:", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 499, | |
| "end": 525, | |
| "text": "Davies and Russell, 1986.)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Relevance and the Normative", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We retained an oil sample for future inspection.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Relevance and the Normative", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The oil in the sample is a part of the total lube oil in the lube oil system, and it is believed that a property of the sample, such as \"contaminated with metal particles', will be true of all of the lube oil as well, and that this will give information about po~ible wear on the bearings. It is therefore relevant to the goal of maintaining the machinery in good working order.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Relevance and the Normative", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have arrived at the following provisional account of what it means to be \"normative'. For an entity to exhibit a normative condition or behavior, it must first of all be a component of a larger system. This system has structure in the form of relations among its components. A pattern is a property of the system, namely, the property of \u2022 subset of these stuctural relations holding. A norm is a pattern which is established either by conventional stipulation or by statistical regularity. An entity is behaving in a normative fashion if it is a component of a system and instantiates a norm within that system. The word \"operate\" given above illustrates this. When we say that an engine is operating, we have in mind a larger system, the device the engine drives, to which the engine may bear various possible relations. A subset of these relations is stipulated to be the norm--the way it is supposed to work. We say it is operating when it is instantiating this norm.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Relevance and the Normative", | |
| "sec_num": "4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The research we have been engaged in has forced us to explicate a complex set of commonsense concepts. Since we have done it in as general a fashion as possible, we may expect that it will be possible to axiomatize a large number of other areas, including areas unrelated to mechanical devices, building on this foundation. The very fact that we have been able to characterize words as diverse as \"range', \"immediately', \"brittle', ~operate\" and \"wear\" shows the promise of this approach.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "5" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "The research reported here was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects AGency under Office of Naval Research contract N00014-85-C-0013. It builds on work supported by NIH Grant LM03611 from the National Library of Medicine, by Grant IST-8209346 from the National Science Foundation, and by a gift from the Systems Development Foundation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Acknowledgements", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Formal Theories o/the Commongense World", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "James", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "F" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Allen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Henry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Kantz", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "251--268", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Allen, James F., and Henry A. Kantz. 1985. \"A model of naive temporal reasoning.\" Formal Theories o/the Commongense World, ed. by Jerry R. Hobbs and Robert \u2022 :C. Moore, Ablex Publishing Corp., 251-268.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Categories and Relations in Slm-t~: The Clause-Level Organization o", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "William", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Croft", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Croft, William. 1986. Categories and Relations in Slm- t~: The Clause-Level Organization o[ Information. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "A logicad approach to reasoning by analogy.* Submitted to the AAAI-86 Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Todd", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Davies", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Stuart", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "J" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Russell", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Davies, Todd R., and Stuart J. Russell. 1986. \"A logi- cad approach to reasoning by analogy.* Submitted to the AAAI-86 Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, philadelphia, Pennsylvania.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Shape and Function of Solid Objects: Some Examples", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ernest", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Davis", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1984, | |
| "venue": "Computer Science Technical Report", | |
| "volume": "137", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Davis, Ernest. 1984. \"Shape and Function of Solid Ob- jects: Some Examples.\" Computer Science Technical Report 137, New York University. October 1984.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Naive physics of materials: A recon mission", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Greg", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hager", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Commonsenee Summer: Final Report", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hager, Greg. 1985. \"Naive physics of materials: A re- con mission.\" In Commonsenee Summer: Final Report, Report No. CSLI-85-35, Center for the Study of Lan- guage and Information, Stanford University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Ezpert S1tstems in the Micro-dectronic Age", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Patrick", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "J" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hayes", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1979, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "242--270", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hayes, Patrick J. 1979. \"Naive physics manifesto.\" Ez- pert S1tstems in the Micro-dectronic Age, ed. by Donald Michie, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 242-270.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Space and the Prepositions in English: Reftdarities and Irregularities in a Complex Domain", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Annette", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Herskovits", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Herskovits, Annette. 1982. Space and the Prepositions in English: Reftdarities and Irregularities in a Complex Domain. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "The Foundation., of Geometry", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "David", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hilbert", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1902, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hilbert, David. 1902. The Foundation., of Geometry. The Open Court Publishing Company.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "A Model for Natural Language Semantics, Part I: The Model", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hobbe", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1974, | |
| "venue": "Research Report #", | |
| "volume": "36", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hobbe, Jerry R. 1974. \"A Model for Natural Language Semantics, Part I: The Model.\" Research Report #36, Department of Computer Science, Yale University. Oc- tober 1974.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Ontological promiscuity", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hobbe", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings, \u00a33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "61--69", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hobbe, Jerry R. 1985a. \"Ontological promiscuity.\" Proceedings, \u00a33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 61.-69.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Granularity", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hobbs", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Proceedinos of the Ninth International Join! Co,ference on Artificial Intelligence", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "432--435", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hobbs, Jerry R. 1985b.\"Granularity.\" Proceedinos of the Ninth International Join! Co,ference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, California, August 1985, 432- 435.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Formal Theories of the Commonsense World", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hobbs", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robert", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "C" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Moore", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hobbs, Jerry R. and Robert C. Moore, eds. 1985. For- mal Theories of the Commonsense World, Ablex Pub- lishing Corp.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Uommonscnse Summer: Final Report", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hobbs", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Hobbs, Jerry R. etal. 1985. Uommonscnse Summer: Final Report, Report No. CSLI-85-35, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford Univer. airy.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "The struturn of a semantic theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerrold", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "J" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Kate", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jerry", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Fodor", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1963, | |
| "venue": "Language", | |
| "volume": "39", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "170--210", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kate, Jerrold J. and Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. \"The stru- turn of a semantic theory.\" Language, Vol. 39 (April- June 196,3), 170-210.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Linguistics and natural logic", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lzkoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "Semantics of Natural Language", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "545--665", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lzkoff, G. 1972. \"Linguistics and natural logic\". Se- mantics of Natural Language, ted. by Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, 545.-665.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Reasoning about plans", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Drew", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mcdermott", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Formal Theories of the Common, chiC World", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "269--318", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "McDermott, Drew. 1985. \"Reasoning about plans.\" Formal Theories of the Common, chiC World, ed. by Jerry R. Hobbs and Robert C. Moore, Ablex Publishing Corp., 269.-318.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "Language and Perception", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "George", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Miller", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "N", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Philip", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Johnson-Laird", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Miller, George A. and Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and Perception,Belknap Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "Conceptual memory: A thecry and computer program for processing and meaning content of natural language utterances", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Charles", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "J" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Rieger", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1974, | |
| "venue": "Stanford AIM-233", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rieger, Charles J. 1974. \"Conceptual memory: A the- cry and computer program for processing and meaning content of natural language utterances.\" Stanford AIM- 233, Department of Computer Science, Stanford Univer- sity.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "Conceptual Information Professing", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Roger", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schank", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1975, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Schank, Roger. 1975. Conceptual Information Pro- fessing. Elsevier Publishing Company.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF19": { | |
| "ref_id": "b19", | |
| "title": "Naive kinematics: Two aapecte of shape", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Yoav", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Shoham", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Commonsen~e Summer: Final Report", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Shoham, Yoav. 1985. \"Naive kinematics: Two aapecte of shape.\" In Commonsen~e Summer: Final Report, Re- port No. CSLI-85-35, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF20": { | |
| "ref_id": "b20", | |
| "title": "A nonclausai connection-graph resolution theorem-proving program", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "E" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Stickel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the AAA[-8~ National Conference on Artificial Intelligence", | |
| "volume": "3", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "229--252", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Stickel, M.E. 1982. \"A nonclausai connection-graph resolution theorem-proving program.\" Proceedings of the AAA[-8~ National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 229-23,3.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF21": { | |
| "ref_id": "b21", | |
| "title": "How language structures space", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Leonard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Talmy", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Talmy, Leonard. 1983. \"How language structures space.\" Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Ap- plication, ed. by Herbert Pick and Linda Acredolo, Plenum Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF22": { | |
| "ref_id": "b22", | |
| "title": "Force dynamics in language and thought", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Leonard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Talmy", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings from the Paraaession on Cue.satires and Agentivitlt , gist Regional Meeting", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Talmy, Leonard. 1985. \"Force dynamics in lan- guage and thought.\" Proceedings from the Paraaession on Cue.satires and Agentivitlt , gist Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, ~, . by William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber, and Karen L. Peterson.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF23": { | |
| "ref_id": "b23", | |
| "title": "Fourier deacriptors for plane closed curves", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "C", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "T" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Zahn", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Z" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Roskies", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "IEEE Transactions on Computers", | |
| "volume": "21", | |
| "issue": "3", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Zahn, C. T., and R. Z. Roskies. 1972. \"Fourier de- acriptors for plane closed curves.\" IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C--21, No. 3 26~'~81. March 1972.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "VJ,. <. ~)e,de,(<. s,) ^ grain(--,.,) D (W,s)[,u6,cele(s,.,,) m ,ub,d(,s. ,t) ^ order(<, e,) ^ grain(.-., s,)]", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "Vtl, ts}beforc(t,, t:) .~ (3 T, <}Time-line(T} ^ order(<, T) ^tie ~ A tzET Atl ~t2", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "\u2022tly in terms of change (Vz, y, .}move(., It, z} E (3 e, , e, )change( e t , e, ) ^ at'(es, z, It) ^ at'(e,,., z) m or in terms of the time line", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF3": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "It is not clear what the constraints on the scale are. Temporal and spatial scales are okay, as i\u2022 \"immediately after 'the alarm* and \"immediately to the left', but the size gale is\u2022't: * John is immediately larger than Bill.Etymologically, it means that there are no intermediate entities between z and y on s. Thus, OP' e, z, y, s)immediate( e) ^ less-Shah'(e, z, 71, s) D -~(3z)less-than(z, z, s) ^ less-than(z, 7I, s) The simplest space.", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF4": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "Formally, (~ el, h, <,, <,}seale,(s,, sp} ^ scale,(s,, sp) A o.dt.(<,,.,) A order(<,, s,) ^(3.)(3y,)(z <, y, ^ \u2022 <, .,) ^(3u,)(z <, m ^ ~ <, z)", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF5": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "of the expression material(b): Bits of material are characterized by both extension and cohesion. The primitive predication occupies(b, r, t) encodes extension, saying that \u2022 bit of material b occupies a region \u2022 at time t. The topology of a bit of material is then parasitic on the topology of the region it occupies. A part bl of \u2022 bit of material b is \u2022 bit of material whose occupied region is always \u2022 subregion of the region occupied by b. Point-like particles (particle) are defined in terms of points in the occupied region, disjoint bits (disjointln't} in terms of disjointness of regions, and contact between bits in terms of contact between their regions. We can then state as follows the Principle of Non-Joint-Occupancy that two bits of material cannot occupy the same place at the same time: 0' h, h)(di.jo~ntb~t (b,, h ) D (V z, ~, b., b4)i.tcrior(b,, b,) A interior(b4, &,) A particle(z, b,) A ~rtide(y, b4) -,(Ez)(ut(~, ~} ^ .", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF6": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "At a force of strength d: > dl, it ceases being topologically iavaxiant, and at \u2022 force of strength d\u2022 _~ d:, it simply break\u2022. Metals exhibit the full range of possibilities, that is, 0 < dl < d: < dl < oo. For forces of strength d < dl, the material is \"hard\"; for forces of strength d where d~ < d < d,, it is \"flexible*; for forces of strength d where d, < d < ds, it is \"malleable\". Words such as \"ductile\" and \"elastic\" can be defined in terms of this vocabulary, together with predicates about the geometry of the bit of material. Words such as \"brittle\" (d, = d, = da) ud \"fluid\" (d, = O, d, = co) can also be defined in these", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF7": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "with Talmy's treatment (1985), in terms of the predications force(a, b, dl ) and resist(b, a, d:)--a forces against b", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF8": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "of o: ebr-~r(e, m, o, be) : mat~-/./(m) A topolofficaily-invariant(o) (V e, m, O, bo)abr-~ent'(e, m, O, be) --= (3 t, b, a, ~,,e,. e,, e,).t(., t) ^ \u00a2on,iatR-o$(o, b, t} ^ au,f.ce(s, b) A par~ide(~, s) ^ change'(c, st, \"=) ^ attacAed'(e,, be, b) ^ not ~ (e:, el ) ^cause(ca, e) ^ hit'(ca, m, be) After the abrasive event, the pointlike bit b0 is no longer a part of the object o: (Ve, m, o, be, e,, e:, t:)abr-e~ent'(e, m, o, be) ^ changd(e, e,, e:} ^ attached'(el, be, b) Anot'(e~,ej) A at(e:,t:) ^ consists-of(o, b:, t:) D -,part(bo, b:) It is necessary to state this explicitly since objects and bits of material can be discontinuous. An abrasion is a large number of abrasive events widely distributed through some nonpointlike region on the surface of an object: (Ve, m, o)abrad~(e, m, o) E (3bs}[(Ve,)[e, E e D (3be)be 6 bs A abr-eventJiet,m,o, bo)] ^ (V b, s, tHat(e, t) ^ consists-of(o, b, t) ^ surface(s, b) D (3 r)subregion(r, S) ^ widelpdistributed(bs, r)]]", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF9": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "\u2022 condition to the abrasive event which renders it \u2022 (single) corrode event: corrode-event(m, o, be) : fluid(m) ^contact(m, be) O's, m, o, be)corrode-~e.r(e, m, o, be) ~_ . .", | |
| "uris": null | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF10": { | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "text": "re, m, o, bo, b2, e,, e:, t:)detach'(e, m, o, be) ^ changd(e, eh e:} ^ attached'(ct, be, b) ^ not'(ez, e,) ^ at(e:, t:) ^ Consists-of(o, b:, t:) D -,(part(be, b:))", | |
| "uris": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |