[SCL] Suggestion for SCL extension module

[pat hayes]

>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.

I agree.  But I think we need to look at more recent work on 
modality. There has been something of a modal-logic renaissance in 
the last decade or so, eg take a look at the recent survey by 
Blackburn, Rijke and Venema

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521802008/qid%3D1068065624/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-6317344-6279842

Summary: the set of modalities being considered is much more 
open-ended, eg cases where every program in a PL corresponds to a 
distinct modality. So we need a more open-ended syntax than we might 
have needed for Prior, Dunn and Kripke.

Pat

>
>John
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SCL mailing list
>SCL at philebus.tamu.edu
>http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/scl


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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