[SCL] telecon elaborations

[andersen at ontologyworks.com]

Hi folks,

I don't get to chime in much, being busy halfway around the planet, but...
see below (look for the lines - this lame mailer doesn't have quotes)..
---

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Tanel Tammet tammet at staff.ttu.ee
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:02:29 +0300
To: scl at philebus.tamu.edu
Subject: [SCL] telecon elaborations

What may happen in a negative scenario, though, is that from
SCL concrete syntax 1 predicate P is converted to Pred(P...
while from SCL concrete syntax 2 P is converted to Holds(P...
while from RDF/RDF it is converted to Triple(...,P,...)
while from a concrete traditional FOL syntax it is converted to just P.

---

First, would not Pred(P..., Holds(P..., and Triple(...,P,...) be the forms
converted FROM not TO?

Second, if P is taken to be the same relation across your theories 1-3, and
predication works like we think it does, then why would one obtain 3
translations?  Using Pred_n and App_n, one should only get one translation.

Third, even if one were to obtain different translated forms, as you
describe above, somewhere would have to be relevant axioms, like:

  (P,x,y)P(x,y)<->Triple(x,P,y)

For if not, then the translations would make no sense.

  .bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .