A full disclosure of the complete semantic study and its findings can be found in Chapter VII (179-209) of the book Semiotics in Intelligent Systems Development, Idea Group, Inc (IGI), 2007
A vastly shortened skeleton summary is posted below:
Parts I and II of the Adi Theory of Semantics state that each Arabic vowel and each consonant is a sign that refers to a pair of compound abstract objects: a process and a polarity. They also state that the 28 consonants and four vowels of Arabic are organized in a 4×8 matrix that represents the relationships of symmetry among the corresponding abstract objects (Adi, 2007).
Part I (Polarities). There is a set T = {closed, open} containing two abstract objects representing symmetrical boundary conditions, and there is a set G = {self, others} containing two abstract objects representing symmetrical engagement conditions, such that the product of the two symmetry sets, supersymmetry set R, i.e.,
R = T x G = { r(j) | j = 1 to 4 }
= { (closed, self), (open, self), (closed, others), (open, others) }
or using a shorthand notation
= {inward, outward, engaged, unengaged}
is a set of abstract object pairs that represent polarities.
If we arrange all Arabic sounds as follows in the 4 x 8 matrix
A = [ a(i, j) | i = 1 to 8 and j = 1 to 4 ]
vowel_i |
vowel_a |
vowel_u |
sukoon |
||
ya |
hamza |
waw |
ha |
||
A = [ |
meem |
fa |
dal |
tha |
] |
‘ain |
noon |
qaf |
ghain |
||
ra |
lam |
ba |
ta |
||
seen |
zay |
ssad |
tha |
||
kaf |
ddad |
tta |
kha |
||
hha |
sheen |
geem |
zza |
then all the sounds a(i, j) of column j, will have elements of meaning that interpret polarity r(j) and no other polarity.
Part II (Elementary Processes & Elementary Control Precedence). There is a set of abstract objects that we shall call elementary processes
P = { p(i) | i = 1, 2, 3 } = {assignment, manifestation, containment}.
For convenience, we write pi for p(i) and enumerate the power set of P
P* = {s(i)| i = 1 to 8}
= { {},{p1}, {p2}, {p3}, {p1, p2}, {p1, p3}, {p2, p3}, {p1, p2, p3} }
When a set s(i) contains more than one elementary process, then we have an elementary process combination. To simplify, we will refer to each set s(i) as a process.
All the sounds a(i, j) of row i of A have elements of meaning that interpret process s(i) such that if there is more than one elementary process in s(i), then the elementary process pk with lowest row number k is applied to, or controls, the remaining elementary processes. We say that p1 has elementary control precedence over p2 and p3, and p2 has control precedence over p3.
The first two parts of the theory are visualized in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 list prominent interpretations of polarities and processes, respectively.
Table 1. Abstract objects of Old Arabic sounds
ELEMENTARY |
P O L A R I T Y |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
P R O C E S S |
inward |
outward |
engaged |
unengaged |
1. no process |
vowel_i |
vowel_a |
vowel_u |
sukoon |
2. assignment |
ya |
hamza |
waw |
ha |
3. manifestation |
meem |
fa |
dal |
thal |
4. containment |
‘ain |
noon |
qaf |
ghain |
5. = 2 on 3 allocation |
ra |
lam |
ba |
ta |
6. = 2 on 4 ordering |
seen |
zay |
ssad |
tha |
7. = 3 on 4 mapping |
kaf |
ddad |
tta |
kha |
8. = 2 on 3 & 4 generic process |
hha |
sheen |
geem |
zza |
Table 2. Prominent interpretations of polarities
inward (closed, self) |
outward (open, self) |
engaged (closed, others) |
unengaged (open, others) |
backward connect to self defined enclosed one’s own recursive repeat self-contained |
empty-self expand free invalid open to others undefined |
common general join shared together |
cut disengage exchange separate special specify |
Table 3. Prominent interpretations of processes
2. assignment |
element, identify, point to, link, signal, a unit |
3. manifestation |
activity, event, method, person, place, space, time |
4. containment |
command, control, energy, force, instruction, order, speech, value |
5. allocation (assignment of manifestation) |
belonging (assign place), decision (assign action), directed action, implement, (determine realization), interpretative link, placement (assign place) |
6. ordering (assignment of containment) |
assessment (assign quantity), attack (directed force), fill (assign content), lodge (assign container), measure (assess), sequence (assign order), stream (sequence),
structure (assign order), measure, etc.
|
7. mapping (manifestation of containment) |
procedure, algorithm (execute laws), apply law, apply force, (tighten) control (manifestation of order), controller, effort (apply energy), display of force, field (force in space) e.g., kite, chord, crux. |
8. generic process (assignment of manifestation and containment) |
behavior (process), experience, living being (system), mechanism (process), motion, object (static view of process), organism, process (assignment and manifestation of control). |
We also created Table 1 for the sounds of English and for other languages (Adi & Ewell, 1987b, 1987d, 1996). However, we were not able to fill all the cells of the table for any language other than Arabic.
Parts III and IV of the Adi Theory of Semantics establish rules for the interpretation of the abstract structures to which three-consonant Arabic word roots refer. Most Arabic word roots are strings of three consonants each. A few roots consist of four, and even fewer roots consist of five consonants. Each consonant a(i, j) is a sign that refers to one non-empty process s(i) from P* (i = 2 to 8 ) and one polarity r(j) from R (see the Adi Theory of Semantics, Parts I & II and Table 3). Thus, a three-consonant root is a structured sign.
Root “a(i, j) a(k, m) a(n, q)” refers to three process-polarity pairs
(s(i), r(j)), (s(k), r(m)), (s(n), r(q))
where i, k, n = 2 to 8 are the rows of A, corresponding to the processes
s(2) = assignment, s(3) = manifestation, s(4) = containment
s(5) = assignment of manifestation, shorthand = allocation
s(6) = assignment of containment, shorthand = ordering
s(7) = manifestation of containment, shorthand = mapping
s(8) = assignment of manifestation & containment, shorthand = generic process
and j, m, q = 1 to 4 are the columns of A , corresponding to the polarities
r(1) = (closed, self), shorthand = inward
r(2) = (open, self), shorthand = outward
r(3) = (closed, others), shorthand = engaged
r(4) = (open, others), shorthand = unengaged
Part III (Control Precedence among Process-Polarity Pairs). Based on observations on the relationships suggested by context between the elements of meaning represented by some word roots, we define the inherited elementary control precedence factor K (see Theory Part II) such that K(assignment)=100, K(manifestation)=10, and K(containment)=1 and then use K to calculate the process-polarity pair control precedence factor C for any process-polarity pair ((s(i), r(j)) as follows
C ( (s(i), r(j)) ) = (6 * Sum ( K(p(n) ) ) | p(n) is in s(i) ) / size(s(i))
where i = 2 to 8 and s(i) is a process, a member of P*
and j = 1 to 4 and r(j) is a polarity from R
and p(n) is an elementary process from P out of subset s(i)
and the multiplier 6 secures integer functional precedence factors
C (2) = 6*100 / 1 = 600
C (3) = 6*10 / 1 = 60
C (4) = 6*1 / 1 = 6
C (5) = 6*110 / 2 = 330
C (6) = 6*101 / 2 = 303
C (7) = 6*11 / 2 = 33
C (8) = 6*111 / 3 = 222
in order to determine the control precedence relationships needed to interpret sound combinations such as word roots and word forms. We notice that the precedence factor C does not depend on polarity.
Since word root “a(i, j) a(k, m) a(n, q)” is a structured sign that refers to the abstract object structure (a triple of process-polarity pairs)
( ((s(i), r(j)), (s(k), r(m)), (s(n), r(q)) )
then those process-polarity pair(s) which have the highest C value will control (are applied to) the remaining process-polarity pair(s).
C produces a descending control precedence for the rows of A
2, 5, 6, 8, 3, 7, 4
assignment, allocation, ordering, process, manifestation, mapping, containment
For example, assignment controls allocation and ordering controls containment.
Part IV (Types of Root Interpretation Mappings). The interpretation of Arabic word roots is governed by mappings or compositions of mappings whose domains and ranges are infinite sets of interpretations of process-polarity pairs. The mappings themselves also are infinite interpretations of process-polarity pairs. Only the following types of root interpretation mappings are associated with Old Arabic three-consonant roots. The corresponding process-polarity pairs are identified by the subscripts.
1. mapping (one controller) |
fij : Xkm ==> Ynq |
2. mapping, unspecified range (one controller) |
fij ( xkm ) |
3. composition, unspecified range (two controllers) |
fij ( gip ( xkm ) ) |
4. composition, unspecified domain & range(two controllers) |
fij ( gip ( ) ) |
5. double composition, unspecified domain & range (three controllers) |
fij ( gip (hiw ( ) ) |
where
i, k, n = 2 to 8 is the index of process s() from P* associated with A rows 2 to 8j, m, p, q, w = 1 to 4 is the polarity associated with A columns 1 to 4
[…] Adi’s Semantic Theory […]
[…] Adi’s Semantic Theory […]
[…] & OceanNeuroSelfOcean DoctorPosit ScienceProfessor Bruce M. Hood's blogRationally SpeakingReadwareSCOTUSSemioticaTalking BrainsThe Costa ReportThe EO Wilson Biodiversity FoundationThe Marine Mammal […]
Why didn’t you open source Readware, Consearch and Readware Software Develops Toolkit once you closed the firm? These concepts are fantastic. Open sourcing them would allowed the dream to survive.
We survive, though not as a business. It is more of a lifetime’s work that cannot be dropped or discarded. Neither Tom nor I have anything against doing business. A book and an “executive decision maker’s” course are in early stages of development. We are not interested in running a software business ourselves, but we are open to partners that are in such a position.
We will soon be moving everything into http://www.readware.org if you are interested.
We have no objection to software. We haven’t met a suitable Open Source business partner yet. Do you know one? I would be happy to entertain the idea of an Open Source Toolkit. The source to the IpServers and developers toolkit would be two products to get started. ConSearch is too dated, But a new ConSearch written in consideration of modern architectures could still be a successful research and analysis tool.
As a retired US Air Force officer, my perspective is, “Survival is always relative to the definition you give it.” So, I agree. Sometime you survive just to roll the dice another day.
In any case, this is definitely not a simple open source question. The high barrier of entry in respect to Adi’s concept is not to be under estimated. The complexity is obviously not as simple as writing a CRM or CMS system where most people can easily understand the needs and the desired solutions. So, who ever considers this concept must have the resources and know-how to implement. Therefore, I suspect if you open source Readware, you should consider a MIT or BSD license over a GPL license. This would encourage firms to invest in the concept while not losing the interest of the GPL people.
Having said this, structuring and positioning the entry is difficult at best. I have asked my son to take a look at the concept. We program in c, c++, perl, php, etc., but we prefer C# using mono to target various platforms. I suspect this would have to be some type of S3 or other cloud based undertaking due to the required computing resources to make it worthwhile. By the way, was Readware written in an object-oriented programming language which employs inheritance concepts?
I like the concept, so give us some time to study your posted theoretical information. Next, I want to understand how we can derive a ROI. Last, I want to understand if this is beyond our resources.
Just to clarify one point, we are poor entrepreneurs with a major goal to achieve a ROI. We do not have to become rich, but no ROI, no interest. I understand Readware may be a life’s work. However, life works and ROI do not have to be divergent. If we decide to go forward, we have no problem in sharing the ROI, as long as there is one.
Thank you for your time.
Well Paul, it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. MITi got a great ROI but failed to invest in the resources necessary to bridge the analytical gap between middle managers and IT.
I failed to make the case for emerging strong analytical markets (text;sentiment analysis and such) before it arrived (circa 1996). When it did emerge, everyone seemed to want to climb on the big data bandwagon– wanting to see large unnatural numbers and statistics (that had to be manually scrutinized, analyzed by IT statisticians).
Now that those markets are growing the case ought to be easier to make. There is a recognized shortage of “analytical capacity”. The larger share of that shortage could be made up with the right inductive application.
Readware makes it possible for line staff and management (or us poor entrepreneurs) to do sentiment analysis from text stores at their desk – w/o assistance from IT staff. The technical resources to make this an open source product are trivial. The business resources are the issue and I am in complete agreement that this is the question you should be asking, once the ROI question is satisfied..
Another potential market is with decision support, specifically guidance and assistance with determining X given the desired outcome Y. This would be something new.
Readware technology — the platform — sits on a Windows or Linux stack. A Cloud architecture makes sense w/access to results on phones and tablets. As a member of MITi’s architectural team, I can say that it was designed from the ground up to be as sound, stable and reliable as any other db engine and resource. We built around a service model (e.g. SAAS) for adding resources (describable data, e.g, text, terms, names, concepts or knowledge types) and responding to inquires.about it resources. It proved to be all those things.
Readware core is written in ANSI C while the wrappers (in the network environment/at user interface) are written in the desired OO language. We used public domain C++ compilers along with JAVA, JavaBeans and Javascript. PHP and Perl (with the IpServers). I even wrote some ASP and dallied with various command languages, interpreters and compilers. Besides the core ANSI C Code a lot of which was rewritten from assembly, we had no preference as to programing environment and are ready to adapt..
When you are ready we can make the sources and objects available to you for further testing and consideration..Since this is a public forum, i think we should just email any remaining details.
It is your time that is needed here, so thank you for that.