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
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
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.
**** I accept, and appreciate, your
criticism of mKR and my actions.
**** My policy is to state my position as clearly
as I can,
**** and accept any consequences which follow