>Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 2007, at 6:11 PM, rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> However, since it places CL and Lbase under something other
>>>> than 'Logics' (I'm not sure if its under 'Axiomatic' or "Natural
>>>> Language'), it is wrong, since these are in fact both logics.
>>> That's not what they say.
>>
>> Then they (whoever they are) are wrong. It depends on *exactly* how a
>> logic is defined (there are several equally good notions), but CL is
>> either a logic or a class of logics.
>
>
>Well, it's subtitle is ": a framework for a family of logic based
>languages." And the introduction says CL "is a logic framework intended
>for information exchange and transmission." (01)
I know, I wrote it. Being intended for
information exchange is not incompatible with
being a logic or even with being a version of FOL. (02)
>If you're citing this ...
>
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
>
>as a normative definition of a logic, then CL contains some things in
>addition to what's in that definition (ex. Section 6.3 and annex A) (03)
That reference begins: (04)
"Typically, a logic consists of a formal or
informal language together with a deductive
system and/or a model-theoretic semantics." (05)
which fits exactly with Annex A (or B or C, or
the main body of the text, for that matter.)
While the importing semantics in 6.3 is new, it
still satisfies the above description since we
give a model-theoretic semantics and a formal, if
'abstract', syntax. (06)
>and
>its called a framework. (07)
In the subtitle. We called it a 'framework'
because, strictly speaking, it provides for an
open-ended variety of 'languages' (in a strict
logician's sense of 'language'), since it allows
for a variety of concrete syntaxes (all different
'languages' in the strict sense: in fact, each of
them is a while family of languages) for the same
abstract syntax. Which is of course part of the
point. But you will note that a *single* abstract
syntax is provided, and a *single* model theory
specified for that single abstract syntax, and
all the conformance conditions are referred to
that *single* specification. (08)
> So, I have to conclude its more than a logic. (09)
This conversation is going on too long. There is
little to be gained by citing decorative text at
us that we wrote, in an attempt to refute our
position. At most, you will get us to admit that
we may have made a poor choice of words. The ISO
spec is quite tightly written, and I think its
meaning is abundantly clear. (010)
>If by class of logics, you mean a) framework; b) family of languages;
>and c) for network transmission, then I'm good with that. (011)
"Framework" has no exact meaning. The term
"family of languages" is accurate, but might be
misleading. In the strict sense of 'language'
used in many logic textbooks, then indeed CL is a
family of languages; but they are all equivalent
to one another when considered as logics, and are
all [**] versions of FOL. And yes, of course it
is intended for network transmission: that has
been a guiding principle behind all these efforts
since the first KIF draft over a decade ago. (012)
Pat (013)
[**] As Chris has pointed out, this is not
STRICTLY true. There are actually - for technical
reasons - three 'families' defined in the spec:
CL itself, the family of segregated sublanguages
of CL, and the family of compact sublanguages of
CL. Classical FOL is both compact and segregated.
But still, this is a much narrower range of
possibilities than is often called a 'family': it
excludes for example modal, indexed, hybrid,
tensed, linear, multivalued, paraconsistent,
nonmonotonic, higher-order (of any degree),
typed, sorted and many other kinds of logic, and
anything which is not a logic (such as any
programming language). The non-compact CL
language is not strictly FO: it is in fact a
finite rendering of an infinitary sublanguage of
L-omega-omega1 (it allows some recursively
defined infinite conjunctions/disjunctions but
only finite quantifiers. See
http://reliant.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01/HayesMenzel-SKIF-IJCAI2001.pdf
which uses the now obsolete term 'SKIF' for the language.) (014)
>
>
>> -chris
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (015)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|