[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] IKL mailing list for discussions?

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jawit Kien <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:02:26 -0500
Message-id: <9f9644bb0906031502p5697aa99r5b391fd109690b11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> IKL is a logical language (well, a class of logical languages) for
>> representing declarative information rigorously.  Like standard
>> first-order logic, it is not a "tool" in the sense of, say, Protege that
>> comes with built-in mechanisms for representing and reasoning upon
>> class hierarchies and the like that might help one to think about and
>> formalize the structure of information in a specific domain.  (I take
>> it you envision mKR as a tool in this sense as well, its lack of both
>> a semantics and an underlying reasoning mechanism notwithstanding.)
Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> I consider any language to be a tool for thinking.

Fine, but it seems to me that that pretty much reduces the notion of a
"tool" to triviality.  Typically, a tool is something that facilitates
an activity, something that speeds it along or helps to make one
better at it, rather than something that simply makes that activity
possible.  In your sense, a language is also a tool for, say, writing
great speeches.  That said, I suppose a *logical* language like IKL
facilitates thinking a *bit*, simply because casting propositions into
a logical form itself brings rigor and clarity that is sometimes
lacking in natural language.   

I personally find the effort to cast an idea as a logical proposition
invigorating, and a good mental exercise.  I like IKL because even
though there is no computer program to tell me my proposition is
pure foolishness, the limits of a logical form does indeed provide
rigor and clarity to my thoughts. I have been experimenting with a
infix notation which would be a different way of expressing IKL,
but the only thing I know about implementation is stuff I learned in
school.  Does anyone who knows about such things think the
information about "orbital" on the page:


actually makes sense?

has anyone ever heard of Orbital before?

The stuff at http://symbolaris.com/pub/index.html   seems pretty
impressive. I haven't looked into enough of it, but would appreciate
feedback on whether it is worth my time.

Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> I put IKL in the class of languages like Prolog.

Well, you shouldn't.  More evidence of the striking gaps in your
knowledge of fundamental issues.

Chris Menzel

I'm not trying to be a simpleton, but Prolog as a language, does represent a particular method of verifying logical statements, independent of any implementation of Prolog. As I recall, it is a recursive unification reasoner.  Which fundamental issues were you considering that using Prolog to express a logical statement would show evidence ?  I am interested in filling any gaps I might have in my approach to logic and ontologies.


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    (01)

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