Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Frame theories: Frame theories examine how the way information is presented can influence how people interpret and respond to it. Frames are mental constructs that people use to organize and process information. They can be influenced by a variety of factors, including personal experiences, cultural values, and the media. See also Cultural relativism, Interpretation, Meaning, Sense, Communication._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Marvin Minsky on Frame Theories - Dictionary of Arguments
Norvig I 471 Frame theory/Minsky/AI research/Norvig/Russell: An influential paper by Marvin Minsky (1975)(1) presented a version of semantic networks called frames; a frame was a representation of an object or category, with attributes and relations to other objects or categories. The question of semantics arose quite acutely with respect to Quillian’s semantic networks (and those of others who followed his approach), with their ubiquitous and very vague “IS-A links” Woods’s (1975)(2) famous article “What’s In a Link?” drew the attention of AI researchers to the need for precise semantics in knowledge representation formalisms. Brachman (1979)(3) elaborated on this point and proposed solutions. Patrick Hayes’s (1979)(4) “The Logic of Frames” cut even deeper, claiming that “Most of ‘frames’ is just a new syntax for parts of first-order logic.” >Syntax, >Frames, >Logic, >Second Order logic. 1. Minsky, M. L. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. InWinston, P. H. (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, pp. 211–277.McGraw-Hill. Originally an MIT AI Laboratory memo; the 1975 version is abridged, but is the most widely cited. 2. Woods, W. A. (1975). What’s in a link? Foundations for semantic networks. In Bobrow, D. G. and Collins, A. M. (Eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 35–82. Academic Press. 3. Brachman, R. J. (1979). On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In Findler, N. V. (Ed.), Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, pp. 3–50. Academic Press. 4. Hayes, P. J. (1979). The logic of frames. In: Metzing, D. (Ed.), Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, pp. 46–61. de Gruyter._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Minsky I Marvin Minsky The Society of Mind New York 1985 Minsky II Marvin Minsky Semantic Information Processing Cambridge, MA 2003 Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
||
> Counter arguments against Minsky
> Counter arguments in relation to Frame Theories
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-28