My only goal is to contribute a useful tool to ontology engineers.
Do YOUR homework.
If you want to know the meaning of mKR propositions,
read my tutorial: http://mkrmke.org/doc/MKEtutorial.html
If you want to know about the power of the mKR language,
read about the languages whose features mKR shares,
and whose programs mKE/mKR can execute:
UNIX shell: http://kornshell.com
Context Knowledge Systems
Name your propositions !
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:00:41 -0400
> From: sowa
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] axiom & mKR experiment
> Bruce and Phil,
> > That poor guy. He is such an innocent...
> He is not innocent. He has a PhD in electrical engineering,
> and he worked for years at Bell Labs.
> I am always willing to help anyone who is willing to learn
> and to do some hard work to accomplish something. But RHM has
> only one goal: to publicize a trivial notation that nobody
> else has found any use for.
> Many of us have made some suggestions about how he might adapt
> it to various tasks to make it useful. But he has only one
> > All of ______'s functions can be expressed, and executed, in mKR.
> Fill in the blank with FOL, CycL, IKL, Tala, etc. That implies that
> mKR is (a) very powerful or (b) vacuous. Hint: it's not powerful.
> > I don't know enough about mKR to comment on whether it could support
> > a TalaMind system.
> Pat Hayes kept asking about the details and the semantics. And the
> answer is nothing. The only thing mKR does is to associate a name
> with a vaguely stated sentence in ordinary English. There's no
> semantics. There are no rules of inference. It's vacuous.
> > I wish Richard well with his efforts, and indeed everyone who conducts
> > research in the TalaMind approach.
> He's sent 70+ notes to Ontolog Forum with nothing but SPAM.
> We all wish him well, but we wish he'd do it elsewhere.