[SCL] Suggestion for SCL extension module

[John F. Sowa]

Tanel,

I agree that your suggestion is important.  I believe that we
must make provision for operators that are outside the SCL
subset.  The lowest-level support is purely syntactic, as you
suggested.  And I support Murray's suggestion of using URIs
to identify some (external) semantic definition of the language
that supports those operators.

Furthermore, I believe that adding a context mechanism with
namespaces and metalevels to the SCL semantics would enable it
to define the semantics for the kinds of operators and languages
you are asking for.  Following is the paper I wrote, which
shows how to support modal and intensional languages within
a framework based on first-order logic:

   http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm

I am not recommending this for dec 12th, but for next year.

John