Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Event, State, And Process In Arrow Logic

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Artificial agents, which are embedded in a virtual world, need to interpret a sequence of commands given to them adequately, considering the temporal structure for each command. In this paper, we start with the semantics of natural language and classify the temporal structures of various eventualities into such aspectual classes as action, process, and event. In order to formalize these temporal structures, we adopt Arrow Logic. This logic specifies the domain for the valuation of a sentence as an arrow. We can connect, or give order to, arrows by defining inter-arrow operations, and can give different views for sentences. Thereafter we formalize the rules of aspectual shifts in situated inference, in the style of a logic programming language. Thus, we not only describe the static representation of temporal features, but also show the dynamic process to deduce how each eventuality is viewed. The rules are applied to the information flow through the sequence of commands; therefore, we consider how the temporal structure of a command affects the succeeding commands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, J. F. 1984, Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23: 123–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J. 1991, The Situation in Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes 17.

  • Binnick, R. I. 1991, Time and the Verb. Oxford University Press, 1991.

  • Blackburn, P. Gardent, C. and de Rijke, M. 1996, On rich ontologies on tense and aspect. In J. Seligman and D. Westerstahl, ed., Logic, Language, and Computation, vol. 1. CSLI, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1976, Aspect. Cambridge University Press.

  • Cooper, R. 1985, Aspectual classes in situation semantics. Technical Report CSLI–84–14C, Center for the Study of Language and Information.

  • Cooper, R. Tense and discourse location in situation semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(1): 17–36, February 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, K. 1991, Logic and Information. Cambridge University Press.

  • Dowty, D. 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. D. Reidel.

  • Glasbey, S. 1996, Towards a channel-theoretic account of the progressive. In J. Seligman and D. Westerstahl, (eds), Logic, Language, and Computation, vol. 1. CSLI, Stanford University.

  • Gunji, T. 1992, A Proto-Lexical Analysis of Temporal Properties of Japanese Verbs. In B. S. Park, (ed.), Linguistics Studies on Natural Language, pages 197–217. Hanshin Publishing, December.

  • Kamp, H. 1979, Events, Instants, and Temporal References, pages 376–417. SpringerVerlag. in Semantics from Different Points of View.

  • Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993, From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publisher's.

  • Landman, F. 1991, Structures for Semantics. Kluwer Academic Press.

  • McDermott, D.V. 1982), A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans. Cognitive Science, 6: 101–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moens, M. and Steedman, M. 1988, Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2): 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1990, Events in the Semantics of English. MIT press.

  • Partee, B. H. 1984, Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7: 243–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H. 1947, Elements of Symbolic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, Y. 1988, Reasoning about Change. The MIT Press.

  • ter Meulen, A. G. B. 1995, Representing Time in Natural Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terenziani, P. 1993, Integrating linguistic and pragmatic temporal information innatural language understanding: the case of when sentences. In Proc. of 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pages 1304–1309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tojo, S. and Nitta, K. 1997, Similarity of legal cases: From temporal relations of affairs. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5: 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tojo, S. and Wong, S. 1996, A legal reasoning system based on situation theory. In J. Seligman and D. Westerstahl, editors, Logic, Language, and Computation, vol. 1. CSLI, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J. 1994, A Note on Dynamic Arrow Logic, pages 15–29. The MIT Press.

  • Vendler, Z. 1967, Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66: 143–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yokota, K., Tsuda, H., Morita, Y., Tojo, S. and Yasukawa, H. 1993, Specific features of a deductive object-oriented database language Quixote. In Proc. of the work-shop on combining declarative and object-oriented databases, ACM SIGMOD, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Tatsunokuchi, Ishikawa, 923-12, Japan e-mail

    Satoshi Tojo

Authors
  1. Satoshi Tojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tojo, S. Event, State, And Process In Arrow Logic. Minds and Machines 9, 81–103 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370613208

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370613208

Search

Navigation