John, Steve & All: (01)
Nice description of the role of CL. (02)
At the summit, I'd like to see this scenario generalized into
information flow and IFF. (03)
John: Any chance Robert Kent would attend ? (04)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Pat,
>
> There are two primary roles for CL:
>
> 1. To serve as a target for translations to and from a wide
> range of logic-based languages.
>
> 2. To provide a model-theoretic semantics for any notation
> that can be translated to CL (i.e., for any sentence s in
> any language L, and for any model M, the truth value of s
> in the model M shall be defined as the truth value in M
> of the CL statement to which s is translated).
>
> > Do you have a list of the open-source reasoning engines that
> > support any of the implementations of CL?
>
> Any reasoning engine for any language that is translatable to CL
> is a reasoning engine for that subset of CL.
>
> Therefore, every reasoning engine for plain vanilla FOL, for OWL,
> for Datalog, for any UML diagrams, etc., etc., etc., can be used
> as a reasoning engine for CL.
>
> And I mean that point *very* seriously. Different subsets of FOL
> can be supported by different reasoning engines with different
> levels of efficiency. Therefore, many reasoning engines are
> actually implemented by a collection of specialized reasoning
> engines for different subsets. That technique has some advantages:
>
> 1. A syntactic test to determine which subset of FOL a particular
> problem belongs to can be performed very rapidly -- usually in
> time proportional to the length of the problem statement.
>
> 2. But reasoning engines usually take more time, sometimes polynomial
> time and sometimes even exponential time.
>
> 3. Yet many important special cases can often be done very fast.
>
> Therefore, it is useful to perform the syntactic check in order
> to determine which reasoning engine to use for a given problem.
>
> The beauty of having a common semantics for a wide range of different
> dialects of logic is that a reasoning engine tailored to a dialect D1
> is guaranteed to produce the same results as a reasoning engine for a
> dialect D2 on any problem expressible in the intersection of D1 and D2.
>
> Therefore, given a problem stated in any source dialect, syntactic
> checks can be used to choose the best reasoning engine for that
> problem -- independent of the dialect for which that reasoning
> engine was originally designed.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|