[SCL] Re: some explanation

[Ed Barkmeyer]

All,

I was happy to see this part of the resolution of this thread, and I 
hope everyone agrees with this.

John F. Sowa wrote:

> On the following points, however, we have no
> disagreement:
> 
>  1. We will go with the new semantics that you [Pat]
>     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.

With respect to this last bullet, I understood Pat to say these semantic 
  extensions are necessary but not sufficient for his would-be "Web 
logic" aka "SCL The Next Generation".

I agree that the "Wild west syntax" is necessary and a good idea.

I wonder what tweaks and twiddles with Chris's current semantic model 
will become necessary for SCL-TNG.

> I don't see any reason for not having identical
> technical foundations for the ISO and W3C standards.

I would agree with this, given that John and Mike accept the use of 
SCL-as-we-know-it, with Chris's current semantics, as the common model. 
  But in that case, I see no reason for there being two standards -- at 
most we are talking about PDF and HTML versions of the same document.

Further, assuming the "W3C standard" is really SCL-TNG, the tweaks and 
twiddles may create a variance in the technical foundation.  And 
retrofitting the SCL-TNG tweaks may have some impact on the "conformance 
mappings" (the word we used to use was "interpretation") of KIF and CGIF.

I don't yet understand Pat's concerns about the document organization, 
but I assume there is a related technical concern, if not for 
SCL-as-we-know-it, then certainly for SCL-the-next-generation.  And I 
suspect that SCL-TNG will require revision/replacement of a particular 
section of the CL semantics, and therefore Pat would like that to be a 
referenceable clause.  [Pat, can you make this issue clearer?]


I strongly disagree with John, however, on the following:

> But I believe that we should put the same technical
> material into the W3C mill *first* so that they
> have it on the web in a free version before it goes
> through the ISO mill.
> 
> ISO will then hold the copyright over the final
> version that bears their stamp of approval, but
> the technical material will already be available
> anyway. 

If your community wanted a W3C standard, you should have gone there in 
the first place.  There is no W3C project for CL or SCL-TNG, and 
creating one will be a political problem.  (And OBTW, Pat and Peter need 
all the help they can get in the W3C political contest over logic 
languages.)

Yes, you can individually submit your contributions to W3C as expert 
contributions, and you can submit them to JTC1/SC32 as expert 
contributions of the United States if you can get L8 to bless them 
(which should not be difficult).  Either way they will be freely 
available on the Web and have no status.

I agree with Harry that we should continue the ISO project to the point 
where we get a DIS and ISO limits distribution, and at that point we 
apply to ISOCS for free dissemination of the standard (which will be the 
following edition).  Along the way, it would be advisable to find a 
target sponsor for the Web availability, and that can be W3C or 
SemWebCentral or OMG or SourceForge, all of whom represent different 
communities of probable interest.

Make no mistake, we will be lucky to reach DIS by the Fall of 2005.  And 
logic standards are becoming a cottage industry, supported by several 
"initiatives" with money (and the common realization that XML itself is 
the surest route to the tower of Babel ever devised).  So we have to 
complete a consensus CL, before it becomes yet-another-exchange-logic, 
instead of *the* reference standard.  So let's not dilute the effort 
with "W3C versions" until we have some version with status.

-Ed

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark at nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8264                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8264                FAX: +1 301-975-4694

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."