On Aug 17, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fyi ...
>
> 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.
>
> FabianNeuhaus and TillMossakowski, supported by JohnSowa and
> MichaelGruninger, suggested that we should use this as an argument to
> propose a modification to Common Logic. (01)
Just to enhance and clarify what you are saying here, Peter: What Till has
proposed is a modification to the CLIF dialect of Common Logic that is defined
in an appendix of the CL ISO standard (viz., to allow for the use non-discourse
names in definitions and, hence, to make CLIF a segregated, rather than
non-segregated, dialect of Common Logic). Modification to Common Logic per se
is not required to implement this. (02)
-chris (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 ).
>
> Regards. =ppy (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|