[SCL] late as expected

[pat hayes]

Guys, just a note of apology. Thanksgiving travel and then a bout of 
something resembling flu have knocked me back about a week. I will 
try to have a coherent document draft by this Thursday (the 4th).

One thing, it is a hell of a lot easier to present a readable 
concrete syntax than an abstract syntax. Plus, Im surely not the only 
person who has noticed that a 'functional' style of presenting the 
abstract syntax, and the KIF-style concrete syntax, are remarkably 
similar (just replace Cond with implies, Conj with and, etc.)

UnivQuant(v1,Cond(Holds(Boy,v1), ExQuant(v2, Conj(Holds(Girl, 
v2),Holds(Kissed,v1, v2)))))
(forall(?x)(implies (Boy ?x)) (exists (?y) (and (Girl ?y) (Kissed ?x ?y))))

so similar, in fact, that we could treat the KIF syntax as BEING the 
abstract syntax: so I am writing the entire thing up using first the 
KIF surface syntax, then discussing alternative 'skins' including 
CGIF, XML and CFOPC (This style: forall x (Boy(x) implies exists y 
(Girl(y) and Kissed(x,y) ) as mappings from the KIF syntax 
primitives, then (finally) describing the abstract syntax in the full 
abstract style as a general-purpose framework for defining 
alternative 'skins'.

It would likely be more widely acceptable if we based it entirely on 
XML as the primary notation, but the correspondence between the KIF 
and the abstract is so compelling I can't resist it.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes