[SCL] Second version of the SCL draft spec here

[Murray Altheim]

pat hayes wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
>>>> This is what I've described before as "published subject
>>>> identifiers" (PSIs), and is what essentially is used in OWL, Dublin
>>>> Core, etc. By "major" components, I would include anything that a
>>>> derived concrete syntax might need to connect it up with the SCL
>>>> abstract syntax, either in prose or in machine code/markup.
>>>>
>>>> For example, owl:Thing is defined in XML by "Thing" in the "owl"
>>>> namespace. There's also the URL
>>>>
>>>>    http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing
>>>
>>> BUt the *denotative* status of such URIrefs is highly controversial; 
>>> the W3C TAG group is in turmoil about this very issue even as we speak.
>>
>> I realize you want this all to sync up with what they're doing, but
>> I'd suggest just ignoring them.
> 
> I can't, I'm one of them.

Curses! %@%$@! Have you already thrown out the pod by the side of
your bed? I've been looking for one of those for an art project...

>> They'll be arguing about this two
>> years from now too. You only pay attention to those you consider an
>> authority. I guess I don't consider the W3C to have any authority;
>> they're just one of a number of industry consortia. I think they
>> burned up that status on this question several years ago, and they've
>> been wasting precious human resources on it ever since. If the people
>> contributing to that discussion would have spent that energy digging
>> wells, the people of Africa would have a clean water supply by now.
>> What's more important are the communities of people doing real work.
>> Much of what the W3C has done in the past few years has been counter-
>> productive to real work. You want real work done here, right?
>>
>>> I agree that this would be worth doing, but we need to be extremely 
>>> clear what exactly it is that we take these names to be denoting, 
>>> particularly in the abstract-syntax framework.
>>
>> Those anchors are just pointing to the definition of the SCL language
>> components.
> 
> OK, fine. No disagreement. But remember that you are talking to 
> logicians here, so its tempting for them, even if not you, to use things 
> like this as, er, logical names; and then we are in a potential spiral.

I always love how it's usually only the logicians that get themselves
into spirals. Oh, and arctic deep water fishermen. The connection? Dunno.

>> If you declare that in the SCL document that the use of a
>> specific URI is meant to mean X, it means X. It doesn't mean Y. You
>> are the author of the document, you declare your own meaning. What
>> the W3C TAG says is relevant only to those that pay attention to what
>> they say. I demand the right to author my owned damned documents and
>> declare their meaning, absent anything they say.
> 
> Actually that is pretty much what they are saying as well. And for the 
> record, my main concern in that discussion is to stop them saying 
> anything daft rather then making them say anything positive.

I hope you're successful, and that you get frequent blood transfusions.

[...]
>> If that puts us at odds in my designing the XCL syntax, I can only
>> provide you that fair warning. My work conforms to XML 1.0 2nd Edition,
>> plus (begrudgingly) the XML Namespaces Recommendation, but I'm not going
>> to begin to try to follow the myriad of conformance spaghetti on
>> everything else.
> 
> I feel a responsibility to take XML schema part 2 slightly seriously for 
> datatyping, but only when it gets rewritten.

I'm okay with that. I kinda like XML Schema P2 Datatypes. It's one of the
few things I've seen recently that seems like good engineering work. If
it's got some bugs the overall idea was at least a good one.

> What may put us at oods is that Im not the least interested in Topic 
> Maps or in conforming to whatever conventions they may suggest.. BUt I 
> really do think that we can agree to disagree on motives and still agree 
> on technical matters, if we both agree to tread lightly.

Actually, I'm not trying to push Topic Maps into the design of XCL at
all. If it makes you feel any better, if XCL "Level 2" has URIs, I can
use it in Topic Maps. So the Topic Map angle on this is completely
transparent. I won't be altering the design a wit to conform to any
requirements I might have coming from my background and use of XTM,
nor would I as a designer feel it right to do so. That's one of the
reasons I like having stated, agreed-upon requirements. I just deliver.
Jack Park calls me the Pizza Man.

>> I'm sure there are other XML experts who can design a
>> syntax, if this doesn't work out, or if having my name on the XCL spec
>> is politically damaging [and while it may sound like it, I'm not
>> blustering -- I really just don't care one way or another about what
>> the W3C says about URIs -- I'd like to help if time permits and we can
>> come to a good working agreement on what needs to be done].
> 
> Well, I sympathize. I want the W3C to say something sensible about URIs, 
> and Im working on it. But I hope we (you and us) can work together 
> without necessarily agreeing about the W3C.

I don't think we have to so long as the XCL design doesn't have to
submit to any arcanity that devolves into inanity.

>>> This would be well worth discussing, in fact. What does the name of 
>>> an abstract syntactic category denote, exactly? This is relevant to 
>>> any attempt to include a quotation mechanism into the SCL core.
>>
>>  >
>>
>>>> So essentially, I'd like to see something akin to
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>    http://cl.tamu.edu/docs/scl/1.0/#forall
>>
>>
>> E.g., if that URI points to the definition of 'forall' in SCL, then
>> any use of that URI has identity with that definition. If we declare
>> that to be the case, it's the case. For purposes of illustration,
>> these two would be equivalent/interchangeable:
>>
>>  <forall variable="x">
>>    <type>TrailerTruck</type>
>>  </forall>
>>
>>  <quantifier name="http://cl.tamu.edu/docs/scl/1.0/#forall" variable="x">
>>    <type>TrailerTruck</type>
>>  </quantifier>
>>
>> ...if we declare them to be. And we can do that. We just do. No
>> clicking of our shiny red heels is necessary, no asking the man
>> behind the curtain for permission.
> 
> Point taken. And Im OK with that, though it would be *nice* if we could 
> do this in a way that was at least interoperable with eg the OWL 
> conventions for use of URIrefs with fragIDs. Worth at least making an 
> effort in that direction, anyway. (I don't think this will be very hard 
> to do, just needs us to be a wee bit careful about what we say in the 
> logic.)

I don't at first glance think this will be a problem.

> PS. Do you know Enrico Motta? His 'magpie' was the big hit at the ISWC 
> last week.

Certainly, he's the director here at KMi, the person I met at ICCS 2001
who invited me into a Ph.D. program in England. If you don't mind, I'm
certain he'd be very pleased to hear that you thought so.

I'm signing off for the night -- trying to get to bed before 3am and
I blew it again...

Murray

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

    "The parties themselves, working with the Arab nations, have to find a
    way to co-operate to fight terror, without putting American forces in
    an area where they will become targets."
                              -- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.
                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2989154.stm
		
    Why haven't they adopted this policy in Afghanistan or Iraq?