>So, when will we seeing tooling for (a) CL and (b) the IKL extensions to it? (01)
CL can be handled by any FOL reasoner, of which
there are many available, several of them open
source. I will be building an IKL engine during
the next year. (02)
Pat Hayes (03)
>On Aug 6, 2007, at 6:08 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>>There is a very *profound* reason why logic is different:
>>SB> We suffer from identical syntax and allegedly identical semantics
>>>all the time in data exchange (ISO 10303), so I don't see why
>>>logic should be any different.
>>Classical Boolean logic was defined in the mid 19th century, and
>>*every* version since then has had absolutely identical semantics.
>>The model-theoretic foundation of Boolean logic, which is called
>>"truth tables", is a subset of the model-theoretic foundation for
>>full first-order logic (FOL).
>>Full FOL was independently discovered and published in 1879 by
>>Gottlob Frege and in a totally different notation by C. S. Peirce
>>in 1880 and 1885. Despite the fact that their notations were
>>radically different in appearance and they were working on
>>different continents with no communication between them,
>>their semantics was *identical*.
>>Furthermore, it is a superset of Boole's semantics, which Peirce
>>was consciously following, while Frege was consciously trying
>>to avoid. Yet they converged on *identical* semantics.
>>During the 20th century, many different versions of what is
>>called classical FOL were invented and written in many different
>>notations, yet they all have *identical semantics*.
>>The model-theoretic foundation defined in the ISO standard for
>>Common Logic is a superset of *all* the previous versions plus
>>many others. It includes the semantics by Boole, Frege, Peirce,
>>Tarski, Gentzen, etc., etc., as subsets. It also includes the
>>semantics of RDF(S), OWL, and many other notations as subsets.
>>No two programming systems defined by behavioral semantics can
>>come anywhere close to that result -- even when one is called
>>an upward compatible version of the other.
>>SB> Its only when we ground the semantics of the data in the
>>>behaviour of the application/organization that we have any hope
>>>of success, and then only after a long and painful process of
>>>testing. Even in the relatively well specified area of geometry,
>>>it has taken many years of effort and continuous testing to get
>>>a reasonably reliable exchange (though not 100%), and there is
>>>still a considerable amount to do.
>>As E. W. Dijstra pointed out over 40 years ago, testing the
>>behavior of programs can only prove the presence of errors,
>>it can never prove their absence.
>>Logic can prove both.
>>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (05)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)