Adrian, (01)
That is true of every programming language and every formal
notation of any kind: (02)
AW> The sticky part is how to know that you have written
> 'the right' clauses -- ones that will actually produce
> the consequences that you want. (03)
I often make the point that no computer language is ever
vague, but what it says so precisely may have no correspondence
whatever to what the author intended. (04)
AW> Our approach is to link English and clauses computationally
> in both directions. I believe you do this too, with your
> NL-to-logic work, albeit with different technology.
>
> Our approach additionally produces English explanations, so that
> what one intends and the clauses that one writes can be more
> easily aligned in a very tight experimental loop. (05)
I wholeheartedly agree. Having a readable English-like version
is extremely valuable. (06)
But that is a separate issue from the question of getting an ISO
standard for a version of FOL that includes a wide range of commonly
used languages, including various SemWeb languages. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|