----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] syntax &
semantics
----- Original Message -----
#### language is Unicon -- it really is UNIX +
Icon + more features
> but notice that there is code...
>
>
procedure to_ikl(prop)
> #=====================
> # translate mKR
to IKL
> ...
> case word1 of {
> "let": { writes_all(["#
<"||word1||"> not translated to IKL"]); fail}
> "at": {
writes_all(["# <"||word1||"> not translated to IKL"]); fail}
>
> ...
>
> "let": { writes_all(["# <"||word1||"> not
translated to IKL"]); fail}
> "return": { writes_all(["#
<"||word1||"> not translated to IKL"]); fail}
>
>
...
>
> } # end case word1
>
> which I doubt is
correct. (why have two "let" labels?
#### an editing error on my part -- has already
been fixed
>
> I am trying to guess exactly what the syntax this
code provides, but
> using the hints
> # subject verb object
pplist [done];
> # pp ::= prep ppname = ppvalue
>
>
> it looks like a statements are valid sentences in this
syntax:
#### change period to semicolon, then (1),(3),(4) are
valid.
(1)> flubart isu carthbart.
(2)> carthbart
rel flubart. # no nvvalue
(3)>
bart haspart carthbart.
(4)> bart
haspart flubart.
(5)> bart iss
from nowish. # object required, prep not
allowed
#### My new simplified grammar changes object
to
#### object ::=
nvlist # comma-separated list of nvphrase
#### nvphrase ::= nvname |
nvname nvop nvvalue
#### nvop ::= '=' | '+='
| '-=' | '*='
>
> I assume these sentences can
be translated to IKL by the mkr2ikl
> procedure. Does IKL have the
"sanity check" that says which
> verbs are incompatible with other
verbs? or says that "iss" can't be
> used with "from" (or can
it?).
#### IKL does not have such a sanity check, but
mKR does
#### The allowed prepositions depend on the
verb.
#### Prepositions are only used for
is do
ido
> If I added some context like "Alice in
Wonderland", does that mean
> certain sentences make sense that wouldn't
otherwise make sense?
#### yes, but syntax is still the same.
>
> JK
>
Dick McCullough
http://mkrmke.org>
>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>
>> <RHM>
>> Again, there are
example ontologies and axioms
>> on my web site.
>>
<PJH>
>> Ah, but if they are written in mKR,
>> then
they don't count as ontologies or axioms
>> until you tell us what
counts as mKR-valid reasoning.
>> Or, equivalently, give us a
precise, formal,
>> semantic specification for the
notation.
>> There is no magic way out of this box.
>> As
suggested by John Sowa, I am defining the
>> semantics of mKR by
translating to IKL.
>>
>> Since you are so eager to see the
semantics of mKR,
>> I have translated the "atomic" statements of the
form
>>
>> subject verb object pplist
[done];
>>
>> for the verbs
>> is
>>
syn
>> isu
>> iss
>> isa
>>
haspart
>> has
>> rel
>> do
>>
ido
>> causes
>> ismem
>> isalt
>> and the
prepositions
>> out
>> of
>> with
>>
od
>> from
>> to
>>
>> You can display the
translation
>> by installing mKE and
executing
>>
>> ke -ikl
>>
>> If you want
more details,
>> you can read the translation
program
>>
>> http://mkrmke.org/src/ikl.icn>>
>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> http://mkrmke.org
_________________________________________________________________
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