Re: [ontolog-forum] blogic iswc keynote

[sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Chris,

It's possible that the differences in our recollections were
influenced by our presuppositions.

JFS>> In fact, most of the differences between Common Logic and the
>> old KIF result from the requirements for making Common Logic
>> support the semantics of RDF.

CM> I believe that is in fact false but it *could* have been true.
> In fact, by my recollection, the differences arose, first, from the
> realization that we needed to move to an abstract syntax that could
> encompass most any existing or proposed language and, second, the
> need for a completely type free syntax and semantics to accommodate
> the syntactic anarchy one finds on the web.

There was a strong desire to make CLIF upward compatible with KIF,
but one of the main sticking points that I recall seemed to me to be the
requirement to map RDF and OWL full to CL.

CM> Pat might recall differently, but I don't recall RDF playing
> any actual motivational role in CL's development and that it was
> a happy accident that RDF syntax could be so easily be represented
> as a CL (sub)dialect and that a semantics for RDF could be built
> so readily from ideas out of CL semantics.

It's possible that the "happy accident" that you recall became
the "requirement" that I heard.

Since I had earlier worked with Genesereth to adapt the CGIF semantics
to KIF, I wasn't exactly happy to change the mapping to a new semantics.
But over time, it grew on me.

John

_________________________________________________________________
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)