[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR programming language

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:27:17 -0400
Message-id: <49BFF995.4040806@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dick,    (01)

I completely agree with the points that Chris M. and others
have been making.  But I'll try to restate them in a way
that relates more directly to what you've been saying.    (02)

RHM> I am relying on the "linguistic communities wherein the
 > semantic conventions of English have already been assimilated".    (03)

The semantic conventions of English and other natural languages
are still open research issues.  There is no such thing as a
standard that has "already been assimilated".  The closest thing
we have are the very many dictionaries of English, no two of
which are completely consistent with one another (nor even
with different parts of themselves).    (04)

RHM> I have stated, on my web site, that the meaning of an mKR
 > proposition is defined by the meaning of its English paraphrase.    (05)

That is the problem.  Your definitions are too vague to be
implemented independently by different people in a way that
will ensure that all implementations are interoperable.    (06)

RHM> I do not consider many pages of mathematical formulas to be
 > an appropriate definition of meaning in mKR.    (07)

None of us are asking for that.  There are many ways to specify
the semantics of mKR formally.  Several months ago, I suggested
the simplest way:    (08)

  1. Define the grammar of mKR in the common EBNF grammar rules
     that are used to state ISO standards.  (Or any other common
     notation for grammar rules.)    (09)

  2. For each expression defined by those rules, state a translation
     of that expression to an equivalent expression in some version
     of logic for which all the hard work of defining a semantics
     has been done.    (010)

As a suitable logic for the mKR sentences, I suggested Common Logic,
which is already an ISO standard.  For the views, which seem to
require some metalevel expressions that go beyond Common Logic,
I suggested the IKL extensions that add the 'that' operator to
the CL base logic.    (011)

If you do that, your mKR language becomes a well-defined dialect
of CL (or IKL).  If you don't do that (or something similar with
any other version of logic you prefer), then you can't expect
anybody to take your notation seriously.    (012)

It's your choice.    (013)

John    (014)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015)

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