On Feb 21, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Jim Rhyne wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> I was making an inquiry, not a challenge. (01)
Ah, I saw your post as neither an inquiry nor a challenge but as a report that
you had found semantic patterns you believed were not expressible in FOL. I
was simply curious to see an example. (02)
> As a practical matter, since I am a technical consultant for hire, I do not
> always get to choose the formalism I work in, and I and the client have to
> live with the consequences.
> I have found a very few things that I had trouble expressing in FOL, and
> they were not very important. These could have been failures of creativity
> on my part. I put that in the note to see if others have had similar
> problems. Still, it would be interesting to me to have a catalog of "semantic
> patterns" (whatever those might be) and their expression in FOL (or CLIF,
> ...). Do you agree with that? (03)
Well, it certainly sounds like something I might well agree with, if only
"whatever those might be" were spelled out. But as it stands I don't know what
you have in mind. (04)
Just to note, CLIF is a specific first-order language. So if you represent
something in CLIF, you thereby represent it in FOL. It's not an *alternative*
to FOL as the disjunction "FOL or CLIF" seems to suggest (although perhaps you
only meant it in the sense of "FOL (or, more specifically, CLIF)". (05)
-chris (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|