[Scl] Re: Report on Common Logic

[John F. Sowa]

Tanel,

I agree:

 > From this I guess that unless we create an easy-to-understand,
 > basically first-order SCL and then an RDF translation into that
 > _soon_, widely noticed alternative ways to achieve similar goals
 > will appear. Not that these would be bad, but I believe that
 > the basic SCL approach is the sensible one to take.

I think that we should co-opt Ian and anyone else who wants
to develop an alternative FOL base by presenting as clean and
clear a version of FOL as anyone else can show -- ASAP.

In my previous note, I summarized some points, which I believe
can help simplify the presentation of the SCL without changing
the basic semantics.

The most complex feature of SCL is the handling of sequence
variables, and I don't know of anybody who really needs them.
If they are in the SCL foundation, I'm willing to put them
into the CG version, but do we really need to include them
in the version we produce for December?

My greatest fear is that Seqvars will be more of a turn-off
than a selling point for some of our most important customers.
If we are going to simplify SCL to get something out quickly,
I would rather drop Seqvars than anything else.

John