Conrad, (01)
I haven't had a chance to read the document in detail,
but it looks like a good summary of a lot of issues. (02)
> Would be glad for any comments or corrections. (03)
I don't know how much time you or your coauthors have
to do anything further, but it would be helpful to have
more examples. That would make it more accessible to
people with a modest background in logic. Otherwise,
it is only readable by people who are beyond the
introductory stage. (04)
For some entries, the discussion is too brief to indicate
the importance. Datalog, for example, is a cleaned up
version of the SQL query language with the extension of
allowing recursive definitions. That makes it an excellent
basis for linking a reasoning system to relational DBs.
A couple of extra lines to make such points would be helpful. (05)
One minor point that struck me as I was flipping pages: (06)
> Terms refer to objects in the domain, such as John or Mary. (07)
I had to do a double take, because it sounds as if the character
strings are objects in the domain. It would be clearer to say (08)
Terms, such as "John" or "Mary", refer to objects in the domain. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|