ontoiop-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontoiop-forum] Definitional extensions in CLIF are not conservative

To: ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:04:25 -0700
Message-id: <CAGdcwD0CqLoCcoXyr8S-ugd-zAEVteCmKPCh12r8kEPJ4+Xxqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fyi ...    (01)

During the OntoIOp team meeting of 15-Aug-2012, the issues raised by
FabianNeuhaus and TillMossakowski concerning definitional extensions
in Common Logic appears to be an unintended consequence of the
decision to make CLIF an unsegregated dialect. Allowing a segregated
dialect of CLIF would get around these problems.    (02)

FabianNeuhaus and TillMossakowski, supported by JohnSowa and
MichaelGruninger, suggested that we should use this as an argument to
propose a modification to Common Logic.    (03)

For those who are interested ...
Till has since started the thread on the [CL] mailing list and it is
being actively debated - see: thread under "[CL] Definitional
extensions in CLIF are not conservative" -
http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/cl/2012-August/thread.html#2448
... anyone who would like to contribute to that discussion, please
consider doing so on the [CL] list ( ref.
http://philebus.tamu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cl ).    (04)

Regards. =ppy
--    (05)

_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/  
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/ 
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>