[SCL] Re: some explanation

[Pat Hayes]

>Pat,
>
>I listed the historical roots for the record,
>but I agree that they have no relevance to how
>we proceed.  And I have no desire to debate
>whether there is a continuity or a break in
>the tradition.
>
>On the following points, however, we have no
>disagreement:
>
>  1. We will go with the new semantics that you
>     and Chris have developed, which is clearly
>     a break with the old KIF semantics.
>
>  2. We will provide an XMLified notation in
>     addition to the LISP-like and CG-like forms.
>
>  3. I also agree that there are new requirements
>     that have been introduced to accommodate new
>     developments in the WWW and elsewhere.  They
>     will be met by the version you have developed.

Not fully by the ISO document, unfortunately.

>
>I don't see that any of these points are any reason
>for not having the same technical foundations in
>both the ISO and W3C standards.

Right now there is no W3C activity devoted or aimed at CL as a W3C 
standard or version. So please don't keep talking about the W3C 
standard in this context. Im not affiliated with the W3C and my 
employer is not a W3C member, so I do things for the W3C only when 
requested to do so by them.

>If your primary
>interest is in writing the W3C version, then just
>give us HTML, and Harry will suck it into MS word
>and add the ISO boilerplate.
>
>I don't see any reason for not having identical
>technical foundations for the ISO and W3C standards.

At some level, neither do I. But the foci of the effort would clearly 
be somewhat different for a Web standard logic than for the KIF/CGIF 
unification tradition. The different foci tend to move various 
aspects in and out of the center of attention, and change the 
attitude towards them in significant ways. XML for you, Mike and 
Harry is just another concrete syntax. If writing for a Web-based 
audience I would make it central, and hang the rest of the spec off 
of it. Abstract syntax is central for Mike and Harry: for a web 
developer it is a luxury or an irrelevance. And so on.

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 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes