[SCL] Again: new version of SCL draft attached

[Tanel Tammet]

Hi,

pat hayes wrote:

> Let me suggest a compromise. Agreed about the split, but not about 
> exactly where it goes. Let us first define a single 'kernel' language 
> with one (abstract) syntax and one model theory.  (We can do this 
> without using Greek letters, even quite formally, using the general 
> style of XML Schematon http://xml.com/pub/a/2003/11/12/schematron.html.) 
> This admits extensions which can considered as syntactic sugar, in the 
> sense that they can be transcribed in the kernel without loss of 
> meaning; and it allows sub-languages which are simply the kernel with 
> some syntax classes omitted and maybe some extra syntactic restrictions 
> imposed.  Once stated for the kernel, the MT never needs to be 
> re-stated: it is fixed.  

OK, fine with me.

Is the current SCL core abstract syntax and MT OK or not
as this kernel language?

If yes, please:

A) state so
B) reformulate Chris presentation in the
    terminology of the core SCL, building
    everything up in a detailed and
    understandable way with examples

If not, please:

A) write a new core SCL
B) do the same as (B) for the 'yes' case.


 >One sublanguage of central importance, which we
> should define as early in the document as possible, is a conventional 
> KR/FOL syntax, which is probably going to be . Then we should describe 
> how to embed the kernel into that syntax, by the use of an appropriate 
> holds/app translation for the relational quantifications and the use of 
> an explicit lists ontology for variadic relations and sequence 
> quantifiers. 

Exactly. We have the sublanguage. Please look into
this, accept or write a new one, and then embed.

> Please, let us not make more divisions than are required. Chris has been 
> putting valiant work into writing a unified technical specification. 

Which is otherwise fine, but as it is presented now, I am
incapable of fully understanding the presentation.

Considering myself a typical audience for the SCL spec,
I draw a conclusion based on analogy that most
of the audience will not understand either.

Look: I am not just complaining that it is hard
to understand. I have a written a lot of structured,
hopefully understandable chapters presenting simple
stuff, which IMHO could be perceived as core,
with the hope that we can continue building
fancier stuff on this core.

I have seen no serious comments or suggestions
on these chapters. There is currently nothing
I can do. Only Chris and me are writing material for
publication, I cannot understand what Chris writes,
Chris does not comment or modify anything I write.

Other people are giving nice advice, but not about
the text Chris or me have written, but rather
about interesting issues in general.

IMHO we are badly stuck right now.

In a letter on history you write:

 > This was roughly when we changed the name from SKIF to CL. Thus, the 
  > original, rather limited, aims of the original group had become rather
 > broadened and even in a sense messianic, causing further rifts within
 > the CL group between the pragmaticists and the wild-eyed theoreticians
 > (Chris and me, mostly).

As I understand from your writing, both SKIF and CL got nowhere, because
of the failure to agree on the common core and the growing
focus on messianic ideas.

Don't you see that happening for SCL in the same way?

We could avoid this by taking the choices and steps
outlined above here. Concrete small steps have to
be taken, all written down in the beginning of this
letter.

Regards,
          Tanel Tammet