[SCL] Re: [CL] SWRL first-order logic

[Pat Hayes]

>Pat,
>
>I sympathize.  I'm sure that we have all compromised
>our standards from time to time for such mundane
>perks as a paycheck.

Hey, I don't get a cent for the W3C work I do. Its all being done to 
help make the world a better place, or something like that.

>  > I know, Im on the committee that did it (for my sins). But
>>  (1) It was *required* to have an XML syntax
>>  (2) it was politically necessary that it be as consistent with RuleML
>>  syntax as possible, and compatible with RDF/OWL syntax, and to provide
>>  links to these notations
>>  (3) it is only a subset of FOL (at most binary relations, for
>>  example), and it is strongly typed; so it is not a serious rival to
>>  the SCL/CG/KIF family in any case.
>
>Actually, it may be politically useful to claim SWRL FOL as
>the *official* XML-ified version of SCL.

Nah, its way to simple. SCL needs a way to relate SCL structure to a 
variety of different surface syntaxes. SWRL should be one of them, 
obviously.

>The restriction
>to binary relations could be removed (as an option) and
>the types could also be optional.  That would make SCL XML
>a superset of SWRL FOL for anybody who might want it.
>
>I have no objection to letting other people use such
>notations if they so desire, as long as I am not required
>to use them, see them, or even think about them.

Well, you know, it was you who started this thread, John. :-)

Pat


>
>John


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