[CL] CL Technical Report

[Harry Delugach]

A slight correction to John's note:

At the last WG2 meeting (as I reported in my email to the CL list on  
Sept. 26) it was agreed that the TR would still involve a project  
*split*, which would take some time to invoke. In the meantime, SC32  
(WG2's parent committee) could publish the TR as an "N" document  
(32Nnnnn) which we can do immediately without any further approvals.  
Here's what I reported:

> It was also recommended that the Technical Report that John agreed  
> to edit could easily just be published as a subcommittee document  
> (e.g., Nnnnn) that would be publicly available. This would be  
> faster and easier than having a separate TR that must go through  
> all of ISO's process.

As such, it would not be a "book" but an online resource, with a  
slight ISO "blessing".

Harry

On Nov 5, 2005, at 7:26 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:

> Leo,
>
> We are planning to write a CL technical report,
> which would discuss the motivation and use of
> the various features of CL and their mapping
> to and from various versions of logic.
>
> Dan Gilman said that the TR could be considered
> part of the CL project, and it would not require
> a vote for a New Work Item.  Therefore, we can
> begin to work on the TR now.  The result would be
> published as an ISO TR, which would give it some
> formal blessing.  However, most of us intend to
> publish our chapters on the WWW as soon as they
> are ready.  But the full final package would
> become an ISO book.
>
> I volunteered to be the editor of the TR, but
> since I am not yet a member of X3L8, that is
> just a statement of intention.  VivoMind intends
> to become an X3L8 member, with me as the principal
> representative to X3L8 and Arun as the alternate.
>
> We still do not have a formal outline of the TR,
> but following are some informal ideas.  If anybody
> I mention has other ideas about what they would
> like to do, please say so.  And if anybody thinks
> that more should be added, please say so (with the
> understanding that people who speak up might get asked
> to volunteer unless they write a strong disclaimer).
>
> Pat Hayes and Chris Menzel are planning to write
> a chapter about the model theory and the motivation
> for the various features.
>
> Jay Halcomb and Randy Schulz are planning to write
> a chapter about the relationships of KIF to CL and
> guidelines for KIF users who want to translate their
> KIF axioms to CLIF.
>
> I plan to write a chapter on conceptual graphs, which
> would go into more detail about how to use the various
> features, their implications, and the differences
> between a graph logic and a linear formula.  As part
> of the historical discussion, I plan to mention Peirce's
> existential graphs (which are roughly equivalent to the
> untyped Core CGIF) and the various semantic networks of
> the 1960s and 1970s.  See, for example, my chapter on
> Semantic Networks from the Encyclopedia of AI (but I
> don't plan to go into this much history in the TR):
>
>     http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnet.htm
>
> As part of the CG chapter, I have to discuss the
> differences between a typed and untyped logic, since
> CGs are weakly typed (a type mismatch makes the statement
> false instead of causing a syntax error).  I am planning
> to use Z as an example of a strongly typed language.
>
> We still haven't had a formal plan and outline for
> the TR, so all of the above is still a very rough
> guide, which will undoubtedly change as soon as we
> finish the current CL draft and move into TR mode.
>
> We should have more info about mapping CL to RDF(S),
> OWL, and SWRL.  Pat worked on the model theory for
> LBase with Guha, and that had a major influence on
> the CL model theory.  More discussion of the SemWeb,
> however, would be useful, but it is not clear whether
> anybody will have time (or may volunteer) to do more.
>
> I also don't think that I'll have the space to do a
> full mapping from Z to CL in my chapter or just sketch
> the mapping.  It would be good to have a separate
> chapter on Z with more discussion of typing in general.
> But that might not happen without another volunteer
> to serve as the author or at least a coauthor.
>
> This is just my summary of where we are and what we had
> been talking about.  It is not yet a formal commitment,
> but we should plan to make it more formal as soon as we
> finish our current round on the standard.
>
> It would also be good to have chapters on other topics,
> such as the relationship of CL to logic programming and
> related systems, including a discussion of the issues
> about negation in Prolog, Datalog, and SQL.
>
> And as soon as we talk about non-classical negation,
> we have to discuss nonmonotonic logic, since negation as
> failure is one of the most popular methods for supporting
> nonmon logic.  And of course, the XML mapping is very
> important for practical purposes.  And there are other
> important topics, which could also be considered, such as
> theorem proving, etc.  Maybe we could get somebody from
> the UML community to write about the issues of defining
> UML in Z or CL, etc.  That might get them more committed
> to doing something.
>
> But we need more volunteers, if any of the extras are
> going to be done.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> CL mailing list
> CL at philebus.tamu.edu
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/cl