John and Whomever It May Concern, (01)
Is there a good tutorial URL on Common Logic, tools using CL, and the list
of HCI CL-using constructions available? (02)
Given the state of the SW limitations, that direction doesn't sound like a
good place to invest R&D money. CL might be a good interoperable
transportable language if it has as many different expressions as you
mentioned in the email below. (03)
Is there some sort of XML (without all the autocratic URI references)
dialect which is interchangeable with CL repesentations? (04)
TIA,
-Rich (05)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:53 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Oooh, FOL is too hard to learn. (07)
Ian, Rich, Pavithra, Adrian, Chris M, Ed, Chris P, and Ali, (08)
Common Logic has no preferred concrete notation of any kind.
Any notation you prefer is, for you, a first-class CL notation. (09)
IB>
>> ... people said "Oooh, FOL is too hard to learn."
>
> Which is true. CL (pick any dialect you like) is difficult to work with. (010)
That's false. You have been using UML diagrams, and I assume that you find
them useful for your work. When we discussed this issue before, I was
unaware that they had been defined as a CL dialect: (011)
http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.0/Beta3/PDF/ (012)
RC>
> Ian, I agree completely. (013)
PK>
> Difficult and easy is a figure of speech, and has no meaning if you do
> not have anything to compare it with.. (014)
AW>
> For lightweight natural language knowledge input and use, you may like
> to consider Executable English, as in... (015)
If you don't like any of the dialects in the annexes of ISO 23707, pick your
favorite declarative notation, whatever it may be. That notation is, for
you and your loved ones, a candidate notation for Common Logic. The next
step to make that candidate a first-class CL dialect is to specify a mapping
to the CL abstract syntax. (016)
IB>
> Maybe the CL/FOL community need to employ some HCI folks to help them
> develop the next generation of modelling notation, because what's
> there in CL now just isn't going to cut it with the average developer
> or data modeller. (017)
CM>
> But now I'm confused. Your claim is that it is first-order logic per
> se that is the problem. If that is true, then it would make no sense
> for the CL/FOL to work with HCI folks to develop another notation,
> since it would be yet another FOL notation -- and hence yet another CL
> dialect and, hence, a notation that (according to you) no average
> developer or data modeler is ever going to work in. (018)
EB>
> First-order logic is therefore only for the top 20% of data modelers,
> not the average... (019)
I suspect that Ian and Ed are mistakenly equating FOL with a concrete
notation like predicate calculus or CLIF. I keep telling people that
they've been speaking FOL all their lives. Every sentence that uses the
words 'and', 'or', 'not', 'if', 'some', or 'every' is using full FOL or some
subset of it. (020)
CP>
> I suspect, like Ian, that at least one contributing factor is that
> most the commercial programming languages have had quite a lot of
> effort devoted to making them easy to use to produce code. Whereas the
> effort in (notation
> for) logic has not been in the same direction. (021)
A huge amount of effort has been devoted to UML, and programmers have been
happy to use it. Given the fUML spec's, UML is CL.
The SQL WHERE-clause has the expressive power of full FOL, and many
programmers prefer SQL to XPath or SPARQL, even for network-style databases. (022)
Adrian has proposed EE, I've proposed CLCE, and Norbert Fuchs has proposed
ACE as English-like notations for logic. Any or all of them could be used
as first-class notations for Common Logic. (023)
We invite, encourage, and solicit anybody and everybody with any HCI
experience, training, or insights to design good declarative notations.
Whatever they define and map to CL semantics is a first-class dialect of
Common Logic. (024)
AH:
> I also don't see how FOL is inherently trickier than learning any
> given procedural programming language. Both require a certain
> perspective and background for one to become fluent in expressing
> themselves in. Admittedly, we have whole schools and courses dedicated
> from as early as high school to teaching people about procedural
> programming... (025)
Dijkstra once said that the first prerequisite for a good programmer is the
ability to express oneself clearly one's own native language.
Huge numbers of people never learned that in high school. But those who can
write clearly already have a head start in learning to write FOL in any
notation of any kind. (026)
John (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
|