1 Exploring high level CNLs for logistics David Mott ETS, IBM v1

2 Evolving Design – in visualisation prototype What do the yellow areas mean? How do I represent this in a CNL?

3 Basic Domain Concepts this defines syntax of fires

4 Want to say: the AS90 uses the NATO_L15 for the bombardment at a rate of 2. the AS90-39 uses the long range ERA for the bombardment at a rate of 1. But this is not basic CE, it is a high level CNL Also might want to record the Table as OWL entities: How much resource is required? User TypeResource TypeTask TypeRate (N per hour) AS90NATO_L15bombardment2 AS90-3long range ERAbombardment1 Uses is really a table of resource usage rate? syntax of uses

5 What do I mean by higher level CNL? Higher levels add: –new function words, to, for, –new (domain specific) logic words, cannot be used for, after –new domain specific (or metaphor specific?) abstractions of entities killer app she run to tree and climb it girl run. reach tree. climb. there is an act named 'CANT USE' that has the armoured unit A1 as object and has the resource request R1 as recipient object the armoured unit A1 cannot be used for the resource request R1 comprehensibility, elegance, succinctness, specialist verbose, awkwardness, generic LOW HIGH

6 Approach Build a transformation language, defining how high level is turned into low level CE This language uses linguistic terms, eg (~~nounP) There must be a corresponding logical transformation

7 Option A. Transform high level CNL into CE entities Results in basic CE: the resource usage ru1 has the type AS90 as user type and has the type NATO_L15 as resource type and has the type bombardment as task type and has the constant 2 as rate. like a table row linguistic transformation rule

8 Use a generic CE rule to calculate the quantity needed by a resource request resulting quantity for the resource request resource request and its components resource usage table, giving rate match to the correct row calculate the qty from the task duration Note the META attribute for type Would be easier visualised as a graph

9 Option B) Transform the table directly into implications The high level CNL: the AS90 uses the NATO_L15 for the bombardment at a rate of 2. Results in: if ( the resource request RR is required by the bombardment T ) and ( the bombardment T has the AS90 A as executor ) and ( the resource request RR requires the NATO_L15 R ) and ( the bombardment T has the value D as duration ) and ( the value Q = the value D * the value 2 ) then ( the resource request RR has the value Q as quantity ). resulting quantity for the request request and its components calculate the qty from the task duration

10 The Linguistic Transformation Rule Specific rule, one rule per row in the table Simpler but has no explicit table entities This is an AXIOM SCHEMA Template for an implication (transformation rule) + a set of parameters (high level CNL instance ) generates An instantiated implication (basic CE) This is a way of getting round the limitations of First Order Predicate Logic

11 Comparison of Options Option A –transform high level CNL into table row entities –only need one generic rule to calc resource requirement –need extra meta-machinery to represent types in the transform rule (this is where the meta miracle occurs) Option B –transform high level CNL into specific rules to calc resource requirement –no explicit representation of table row –many rules created –no need for meta-machinery –equivalent to axiom schema (this is where the meta miracle occurs)

12 Where is the Logical Underpinning? I am creating logical implications, which have a logical meaning Option B uses axiom schema Option A uses meta miracle at the linguistic level, this needs logically underpinning