KIF: suo-kif list

[Christopher A. Welty]

I'm in agreement with my namesake.  I suggest we proceed as I 
recommended at the meeting, that we consider this philebus list an 
email extension of our amazingly productive meeting, and the IEEE 
list the place where we report results and take comments. 
Ultimately, it is there - the IEEE list - where the work we do will 
be accepted/rejected for SUO use and for IEEE standardization, and 
this is a critical point to make.   The philebus list simply allows 
us to focus on making a more cogent proposal without so many 
distractions as the open world nit-picks each point we discuss.

As with others here, I've been doing work liek this thru email for 
years and closed lists that report to open ones is the only thing 
that has ever worked.  Moderation is a trivial case - in which the 
closed list consists of one person.

-ChrisW

At 6:28 PM -0600 12/2/00, Chris Menzel wrote:
>Below is the *fouth* message to appear on the SUO-KIF list.  Notice
>the author "only has a moment to write."  And notice that he plans
>
>   to elaborate on the relationship between this kind of "formal and
>   rational meaning" (FARM) and "substantial and empirical
>   meaning" (SAEM), and whether this particular polarity ought, as a
>   matter of actual fact, be contemplated as encompassing all of the
>   sorts of meaning that there are, must be, or even might be.  But
>   this new order of discussion may need to be carried on elsewhere,
>   perhaps.
>
>I will not use this list for serious KIF discussion.
>
>-chris
>
>*******
>
>   Robert E. Kent wrote:
>   >
>   > John et al,
>   >
>   > Attached is a PDF file giving a table
>   > with the various syntactic and semantic
>   > components of 1st order logic.
>   >
>   > Robert E. Kent
>   > rekent at ontologos.org
>
>   §~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§
>
>   Robert,
>
>   I only have a moment to write, but just for the sake
>   of future reference and mutual undertanding, I would
>   describe the "semantic" component of the scheme that
>   you have given us as a case of a "formal semantics".
>   I hate having to keep referring to intellectual or
>   any other kind of history in this "eternal agora",
>   but if you go back to Frege and to Peirce and work
>   your way forward you will find that the struggle
>   to attain a formal semantics was a hard-fought
>   battle and well worth the effort, but that its
>   results by no means cover everything that was
>   regarded as the full "study of meaning" (SOM)
>   at the time when this noble endeavor began.
>   So the best that I can probably arrange to
>   do within the scope of my own usage is to
>   continue to use your word "semantics" with
>   the constant attachment of the qualifying
>   adjective "formal".  I plan to elaborate
>   on the relationship between this kind of
>   "formal and rational meaning" (FARM) and
>   "substantial and empirical meaning" (SAEM),
>   and whether this particular polarity ought,
>   as a matter of actual fact, be contemplated
>   as encompassing all of the sorts of meaning
>   that there are, must be, or even might be.
>   But this new order of discussion may need
>   to be carried on elsewhere, perhaps.
>
>   Many Regards,
>
>   Jon Awbrey
>
>   §~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~


****NOTE NEW AREA CODE:
Christopher A. Welty        http://www.cs.vassar.edu/faculty/welty/
Vassar College Computer Science Dept.         Voice: (845) 437-5992
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0462                     Fax: (845) 437-7498