|
Thank you very much, Chris. I stand corrected.
Allow me to re-state my earlier post ...
//
All,
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 the CLIF dialect of Common Logic (as
currently defined in an appendix of the CL ISO standard,) 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.
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
--
On Aug 17, 2012 6:22 PM, "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -chris
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|