[SCL] Re: Report on Common Logic

[Murray Altheim]

Tanel Tammet wrote:
[...]
> I have a few comments.
> 
> The basic issue is that it would be worrisome if XML
> syntax in the SCL spec would give SCL-in-XML
> _more expressive power_ than say, SCL in KIF or
> "traditional" or N3 syntax or whatever.
> 
> In other words, anything having any _meaning_ in
> SCL-XML spec should be expressible in other SCL syntaxes
> (at least for the purposes of our spec!)

It might be worrisome, but it's not a problem. It would only
be a problem if the SCL semantics were altered. Nothing I've
mentioned alters any of the meaning of anything. It simply
provides features that enable linking, interoperation,
transformation, etc.  It very well may have more "expressive
power" in that it may be more widely functional than KIF. So
what? I don't see any reason why an XML syntax should be
somehow handicapped merely because KIF or some other SCL
syntax can't do what it can do, e.g., link with other XCL
documents, or mix with other markup. On the contrary, one of
the reasons to create an XCL syntax is to be able to do things
you can't do with KIF -- why else bother then?

> Hence, the nice stuff Murray was thinking about for
> the XML syntax should be in our report also for
> the ABSTRACT syntax, or not at all.

I disagree. Unless there's something in the XCL syntax that
alters the abstract semantics. I've never suggested anything
of the sort. There will be things that XCL can do that can't
be done in KIF, but those things won't have to do with the
semantics of the XCL expressions themselves.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

  White House defiant despite deadliest strike on forces since end of war
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1076578,00.html
  US defiant after Baghdad attack
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3186074.stm
  US defiant on X-Ray prisoners
    http://old.smh.com.au/news/0202/10/world/world7.html
  US defiant on war crimes court
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/01/bosnia.peacekeeping/?related
  US stands defiant despite isolation in climate debate
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,526607,00.html
  US defiant and unrepentant over largest chemical warfare campaign in history
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,923715,00.html
  Americans defiant over growing divisions with Europe
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/06/wter106.xml
  US defiant over missile defense
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2001/space-010717-wwwh1j17.htm
  Bush defiant over 'Bin Laden tape'
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3204612.stm
  Bush defiant ahead of visit to Britain
    http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200107/18/eng20010718_75285.html
  'Bring them on,' defiant Bush warns Iraqi militants
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/135155984_iraq03.html
  Greenhouse gas emissions soar in defiant US
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,515198,00.html
  Europe seethes as defiant US goes its own way
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,747743,00.html
  Defiant US threatens UNs peacekeeping role
    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s596992.htm
  US isolated but defiant on Cuba sanctions
    http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/process/followup/1996/04160196.htm