On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> It think CL could be very useful as KR for NLP applications
>
> OK, that wasn't clear from your earlier emails, which seemed (?) to
> be saying that CL *was* NLP.
> But why say CL instead of FOL? CL *is* FOL, after all. (01)
Just for the record, since this comment of Pat's, meant to dispel any
unclarity about the nature of CL as logic as opposed to NLP, might
suggest that CL is nothing *but* a species of FOL: CL indeed
encompasses FOL but, as Pat of course knows as well as anybody,
because of the existence of CL dialects that include so-called
"sequence markers" that (in a certain restricted sense) allow
quantification over finite sequences of domain objects, CL also
encompasses a class of logics that are equivalent in expressive power
to weak infinitary logics, and these logics are provably more powerful
than FOL. (It can easily be shown, e.g., that compactness fails for
these logics.) (02)
For details see the CL spec. (03)
-chris (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|