Re: SUO: RE: SUMO axiomatization
On 12/18/01 16:27, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
> Bill and Adam,
>
> The KIF group has already agreed that both sorts and row variables
> will be in the standard for logical foundations (LF). That is
> the proposal that replaces the proposed separate standards for
> conceptual graphs and KIF.
Didn't know about that. Do you have a reference, John?
> The LF standard will also include syntactic mappings from the
> semantic foundations to the syntax of the proposed ISO standards
> for KIF and CGIF. And we encourage anyone else who is defining
> any declarative language (such as the various UML diagrams) to
> map their syntax to and from the same LF in order to ensure full
> interoperability of the language specifications.
This is important. Wonder if there's any chance of getting the DAML/OIL
folks to go along?
> To answer Adam, we can also include grammar rules for a "stripped down"
> version of standard KIF that will include only those features that
> Adam wants. I strongly disagree with Adam that sorts and row
> variables are not needed for doing ontology. And contrary to Adam's
> claim that they add "complexity", I believe that row variables and
> sorts make the resulting language much more usable and readable,
> as Bill pointed out.
John, do you mean by sorts in the syntax something like:
(forall ((?x kid))
(exists ((?y toy))
(wants-to-own ?x ?y)))
?
.bill