Pat, (01)
I agree, but extending the IKL features to the CL abstract
syntax is straightforward. (02)
PH> Strictly speaking, its an extension of CLIF, the KIF-like
> dialect of CL. (03)
Furthermore, the new IKL features for supporting propositions
were necessary to support use of propositions in languages such
as conceptual graphs and CycL, which had been used to represent
propositions for years. The CGIF syntax involves putting back
some features that had been taken out for CL. (04)
> Even more strictly speaking, its a modification of an extension
> of CLIF, since it uses one syntactic form differently (the guarded
> quantifier in CLIF is a numerical quantifier in IKL) but this is
> really an upgrade to CLIF, and we will as quickly as possible
> modify CLIF in the same way in a ISO corrigendum. (05)
This is a very good reason for removing the guarded quantifiers
from the current version of CL. (06)
But deleting the guarded quantifiers is a fairly small change
that could easily be considered a corrigendum. Adding the IKL
features, the extensions to the model theory, and the extensions
to all three dialects, however, would be a much bigger change. (07)
Should we do both in the same corrigendum? (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|