----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> RHM> I like mKR. I think in mKR.
>
> Good for you. But the partisans of LISP, APL, Prolog,
> C, Java, and many other programming languages make
> exactly the same statements about their favorite
> languages. All those languages were *designed* by people
> who also had grand theoretical ideas and they designed
> their languages to be consistent with their theories.
>
> But they *defined* those languages at a very low level
> that could be processed by a very stupid computer that
> did not understand anything about those theories.
>
> If you want your language to be used and implemented
> on the kinds of computers we have today, I suggest
> that you do the same.
>
mKR is defined at a very low level that can be processed
by a very stupid computer. mKE is doing that today.
If you really wanted that definition, you could download
it from my web site.
I'll anticipate your objections. No, the definition is not
publication quality. Yes, it is messy because it bears
the remnants of 13 years of evolution. (01)
What puzzles me is
why you question the high level concepts of mKR.
You are very familiar with Cyc.
mKR context is very similar to CycL context.
Enough said? (02)
Dick McCullough
http://mkrmke.org (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|