I know that your approach is considered standard practice by many people. But I do not endorse it. I do not consider it appropriate for natural languages.
So you've asserted, repeatedly, without argument. There are indeed a number of approaches to the semantics of natural language. But to say model theoretic approaches are *inappropriate* is simple ignorance. No matter one's preferred approach, it is just a fact that there is a vast and extraordinarily rich body of research in linguistics in which model theoretic methods are fruitfully brought to bear on a wide variety of semantical issues in natural language. John mentioned three notable paradigms -- Montague Grammar, situation semantics, and discourse representation theory. As you are oblivious to this research you have no basis for making any judgments regarding the propriety of these methods.
Be that as it may, the proper approach to the semantics of natural language has never really been at issue in these threads.
I do not consider it appropriate for mKR.
That has been the issue. The point, once again, is that, your waffling on the issue notwithstanding, mKR is a formal language that you tout as a knowledge representation language and, presumably, by your participation in this forum, as one that can further the goal of using computers to share and integrate information across high-speed computer networks. For reasons explained repeatedly (and for the last time by me), mKR as it stands lacks the logical and formal semantical underpinnings that are essential for it to be able to serve those purposes.
That's it from me. It should be clear enough at this point for those who've bothered to follow these discussions what mKR has to offer this community and the KR community generally.
Chris Menzel