[SCL] new draft

[pat hayes]

>Pat,
>
>The latest (Dec 19) draft looks much better, but
>I haven't yet had a chance to study it in detail.
>
>However, the use of the word "ontology" as a synonym
>for any set of sentences still sets my teeth on edge.

But you really do seem to be alone in this, John. I think you may be 
able to get over it in time.

>I agree with you that many people use it as a meaningless
>buzz word -- but just for that reason it is likely to
>become obsolete as soon as the latest bubble (i.e. the
>so-called semantic web) pops.

No, they use it to refer to a set of logical sentences in some 
document, typically one that is transmittable over a network.  I use 
it in this way myself.

>
>I really wish you would do a global change of "ontology"
>to "module".

One of the reasons I don't want to do this, apart from the fact that 
it will be widely mis-read where "ontology" will not, is that it 
suggests a notion of 'modularity' which is precisely what SCL is 
aimed at avoiding: the idea that each bundle of assertions is 
isolated in its own package.

>By the way, I am now writing a grammar for a very general
>version of controlled English, which supports nearly the
>full SCL semantics, including sequence variables.  The
>only thing I haven't found a natural way of expressing
>is the option of quantifying over relations.

OK, can we use that as another dialect (replacement word for 'skin') ?

Pat

>
>John


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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