[SCL] Re: slightly free logic

[John F. Sowa]

I just wanted to make some additions and
a couple of corrections to Jay's note.

As Jay says, we discussed terminology,
and the term "flaying" has mercifully been
dropped as a way of specifying "skins".
But I would still prefer something less
metaphorical than "skin", such as "language"
or "syntax".

When we met at TAMU, I thought we had
agreed on the word "module" for a collection
of sentences, and I object to a term such
as "ontology", which represents just one
rather specialized use of a module.

Equally valid uses include specification,
theory, rules, metadata, knowledge base,
constraints, etc., etc., etc.  Therefore,
I recommend a neutral term, such as module.
Pat replied that the word "ontology" has
become so degraded by use and misuse that its
current meaning has degenerated to nothing
more than a collection of sentences --
therefore, it is just as neutral as module.

My preference for putting backquote, which
was in KIF at one point, into SCL is that
I could use it to support modal logic,
along the lines of paper:

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm
    Laws, Facts, and Contexts

I was not asking for boxes and diamonds in
SCL, but for a backquote, which would let
me define boxes and diamonds in a way that
would be indistinguishable from modal
logic based on possible worlds.

Instead of Pat's choice of primitives --
and, not, and forall -- I recommended
and, not, and exists.  I observed that
the universal quantifier more naturally
belongs to the dual selection -- or, not,
and forall -- which is used in clause form.

We compromised on including and, or, not,
forall, and exists.

John