[SCL] Suggestion for SCL extension module

[Murray Altheim]

John F. Sowa wrote:
> 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,

Could you distill that paper down to a paragraph summary? Actually,
a short description of what that would mean syntactically? It's a
bit beyond my ability right now to try to digest.

Thanks,

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