[SCL] Fwd: Common Logic status with respect to standards

[Michael Gruninger]

pat hayes wrote:

>> This will be a chance for the US part of the international group
>
>
> What international group? Right now, SCL is being composed by a group 
> which I convened a little less than a year ago and which consists of a 
> small group of people all known to me. The Common Logic group is 
> chaired by Michael Uschold and I believe have not met or had any 
> correspondence for a year now. 

Ouch! That hurts, Pat; it seems like just last week that we were having 
lunch together,
but you've already forgotten my name ...

I never really saw the distinction between the Common Logic Group and 
the SCL
group. I saw SCL as the best way to get the past the technical hurdles 
that the larger
group had been debating.

There seem to be two senses of the word "group" in this discussion.
One is the group of technically-oriented people who have been thrashing out
the technical details of the spec. The other is the group of ISO 
representatives
that will actually be voting on the document on its way to becoming a 
standard.
There has unfortunately been a large gap between these two groups. One 
particular
problem is that there are people in Australia and the UK who are 
interested in
participating in the Common Logic project, but who have not been able to 
contact
their national bodies within ISO.

>>
> ? What working group?? Where was this 'like' expressed, and to whom?
>
>> the general organization of having the Common Logic core (now called 
>> SCL) as part 1 of the standard, and then having KIF, CGIF, and CLML 
>> as parts 2, 3 and 4 showing how all of the core can be mapped to each 
>> particular language L. Parts 2, 3, and 4 should each describe 
>> extensions to the languages that are NOT part of the core as well. 
>> There can be informative (i.e., not prescriptive) annexes that help 
>> further explain the languages.
>
>
> This is not exactly the organization that I favor, and in fact it does 
> not really make sense, since the concrete SCL syntaxes (KIF, CG etc) 
> are not extensions to SCL.  There are two orthogonal issues: 
> concretizing the abstract syntax in various ways, and 
> restricting/extending the language in various ways. Particular 
> concrete syntaxes may not support all language extensions. 

I have no idea where this proposal came from; it was not in the New Work 
Item
proposal. I suspect that this is Sowa's idea.

- michael