[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:07:20 -0600 (CST)
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.1.00.0712261249370.346@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, John Black wrote:
> ...
> [Pat Hayes wrote:]
>> 1. If the logic has modalities such a a future tense operator F, then
>> the meaning of a name (in fact, any referring term) may be different
>> inside the scope of the modality from its meaning outside. Suppose
>> for example we introduce a name [note A] PresidentOfUSA, so that (=
>> PresidentOfUSA GeorgeWBush) is true now; but it is certainly not true
>> now that (F 2010 (= PresidentOfUSA GeorgeWBush)), because the
>> referent of "PresidentOf USA" will be different in 2010.
>> 2. If the logic has contexts which affect the denotation of names,
>> then the same name may be interpreted differently in different
>> contexts. (Not all context logics allow names to denote differently
>> in this way, but some do.)
> And this is clearly a part of IKL. Is the modality and context logic
> mapping functionality in IKL due to something in CL?    (01)

No.  Modalities and contexts are *not* part of either CL's or IKL's
primitive apparatus.  Temporal and alethic modalities as well as
contexts can be all be introduced axiomatically via theories that
quantify over relevant "indices" -- times, worlds, and (obviously)
contexts.  The critical trick here is that propositions are part of
IKL's native ontology and temporal, modal, contextual, etc facts can all
be represented as relations between indices of the desired sort and
propositions.    (02)

> Or is this part of the IKL dialect?    (03)

IKL is not a CL dialect.  It is an powerful extension of the CL dialect
CLIF.    (04)

> A related question: Is IKL considered to be an ISO standard by virtue
> of its being conformant to the CL dialect forming feature in CL?    (05)

No, since it's not a CL dialect.    (06)

> Or will it need to go through a standardization process also?    (07)

If it were to become standardized it would require its own process.    (08)

Chris Menzel    (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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>