Talk:Reification (information retrieval)

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

On 25 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Reification (linguistics). The result of the discussion was moved.

Cites[edit]

This needs work, and cites. There's also an NPOV problem; the claim that this is useful is a statement of a position. For a contrary view, see the classic essay "Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity", by Drew McDermott. --John Nagle 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, by all means. I created this from the blurb that used to be at reification. I know nothing about the subject, so couldn't expand on it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleuze (talk • contribs)

OK, we'll leave the "verify" tag, and maybe someone will fix it up. The idea of turning natural language into predicate calculus was considered a neat idea in the late 1970s, but it didn't turn out to be very useful. An update to more modern thinking would be helpful, but I'm not current in that field. --John Nagle 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? In what way is saying "its useful" an NPOV issue?? If someone uses this for something, then its useful. In my case, I am reading an article on Markov logic networks, wherein linguistic reification is one of the early steps, followed by conversion to a lambda calculus form, and then many other steps. In this calculation, reification is a crucial step. The "natural stupidity" article cited probably just says that using reified forms (aka QLF's or quasi-logical forms) in certain ways is stupid; it cannot claim that QLF's in and of themsels are useless. linas (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Reification (computer science) (merge?)[edit]

There was an update to the article on Reification (computer science). It now includes discussion on data reification (aka stepwise refinement) which is very similar to the usage described in this article. I suggest merging Reification (linguistic) article into the computer science one in order to consolidate all usages in one place.

-- Equilibrioception (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd argue against it, as that article is already long and busy. It would be better if that article made some brief mention, and then pointed to this article. The point is that this article is short, sweet, to the point, and fits *exactly* one of the steps that I do (need to do), and uses exactly the language that I use. Trying to plow through the other article is quite a chore. linas (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also against merge: (1) the computer science article currently instances (apparently quite correctly, though perhaps not usefully or significantly) the use of 'reification' as a characterization of the process of nominalization. If it is significant (is it? I am not a linguist) then that paragraph should simply be moved here. (2) As for reification in natural language processing currently covered here, it is a distinct subject area (unlike programming and methodologies which are inherently part of computer science) and so it should not be subsumed under that heading, either on the basis of similarity or on the basis that one might (or would) use a computer in the process. --Airsplit (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No community input on this RM for 30 days, which makes it an uncontested RM. Since the requestor has provided two options for the move target, but none has been deemed superior than the other by any discussion, the article has been moved to the first suggested option. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 20:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reification (linguistics) → Reification (information retrieval) or Reification (natural language processing) – Given the mentions of tooling and synonym discovery I think the content of this page was already more in the realm of natural language processing than linguistics. Consider merging the bottom part with semantic parsing. Sean Lewis Bethard (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: No input has yet been provided as to which of the two proposed new names is superior. Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.