[SCL] new versions on website

[Pat Hayes]

Hi guys.

Im still working on this stuff, but the versions on the website

http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/CL/ISOCommonLogicInWurdLatest.doc
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/CL/ISOCommonLogicInWurdLatest.pdf

just got updated to the latest state.

Harry, the idea is that section 8 in this draft should morph into the 
KIF appendix. Ive made it completely self-contained and also put some 
of the discussion pieces into it that are hard to follow unless you 
can see the actual text. Section 6 is the abstract-syntax and generic 
model theory part. There's a table showing syntactic conformance for 
the core syntax but this is only a sketch at present.

John, if  there is anything still missing in the abstract syntax that 
you will need for CGIF, please let me know.

Chris, Ive revised the phrasing of the abstract syntax along the 
lines we discussed, using the terminology 'type' of an expression. 
Also re. our conversation, see the discussion of mixed networks in 
6.3.1.

The section about translating into conventional FOL is a complete 
mess right now, Ive just dumped text into it from other places that 
needs putting into a coherent story. A theme should be the two 
special cases of interpretations, full wildwest (D=U) and 
conventional Tarski (U - D contains extension mappings). The section 
on datatype modules is also a mess. And I havnt actually written the 
conformance clause, but you will be able to get an idea of where Im 
going from the use of must/may language (I know this is W3C talk not 
ISO talk, but its the best way I have of getting my thoughts on this 
topic in order. Harry, I'll need some guidance or help on how the ISO 
wants conformance to be stated, I'm not familiar with the ISO 
'style'. Is there an online source of guidance about this that I 
could read?)

The part that is most revised is the importing/modules/named text 
stuff. I realized that in order to describe conformance (and 
semantics) for this stuff we need to introduce the network as an 
actual thing and talk about it explicitly. Its the network that 
conforms to these conditions, rather than the notation or logic. The 
two are kind of intertwined at this point. Im quite excited about his 
stuff, BTW, as I think it may be the first attempt at giving a 
coherent semantics to logic-distributed-on-a-network. Ive tried to 
emphasize that it can apply to non-Web networks as well (could be 
just two people sending text back and forth.)

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/scl/attachments/20050307/7180d4f0/attachment.html