[SCL] Fwd: Common Logic status with respect to standards

[pat hayes]

>Pat,
>
>Will do.
>
>>  John, can you focus on providing an SCL-abstract-syntax
>>  version of CGs? If you don't need seqvars, don't use them:
>>  in fact, I think its an interesting question how 'small'
>>  a subset of SCL-AS is needed to cover all of CG syntax:
>>  if it turns out to be exactly the SCL-FOL subset that
>>  would be great.
>
>I have been designing EGIF (Existential Graph Interchange
>Format) as an untyped subset of CGIF.  I plan to map the
>untyped SCL to EGIF and keep types in CGIF.

OK, though I think that the SCL AS would *allow* a typed language to 
be an SCL concrete syntax, as long as the types were thought of 
simply as syntactic restrictions. (Chris, you agree?)

>
>>  (Do CGs require that functions be declared explicitly
>>  and have a fixed arity?)
>
>I have always assumed so, but I could drop that assumption
>for EGIF.

I think it would be more interesting if you were to leave CGIF as it 
is, and see how it could be rendered as a concrete SCL syntax, ie 
whether its grammar can be fitted into the SCL framework.

>For CGIF, I would assume that functions and
>relations are disjoint from individuals, but I plan to
>support variable numbers of arcs (i.e., arguments).

Would they be naturally formed as a sequence, or would the 'role' 
style syntax (or some variant on it?) be more natural?

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