Re: stratml vs cl

Agreed -  natural language is start point for AI explaining and CL is good
for KR mapping of natural language statements. John Sowa acknowledged that
CL  does not map well to RDF / OWL declarations. Fortunately, (noted by
Owen)  the XCLX language provides an enhanced level of interoperability
between general-purpose KR languages and XML-based structured data... and
is a bridge to RULEML , RDF/OWL and STRATML , etc.

Carl Mattocks
It was a pleasure to clarify


On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:00 AM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> following various exchanges, I wonder if are these two 'languages'
> formally aligned?
>
> if one of our missions is to promote natural language as a formal KR,
> (over, say, other formal notations) then I say our best bet is CL, because
> it  is demonstrated as logically valid, needs no further proof
>
> If stratml can be mapped to CL, then also stratmL or any other ML that can
> be used equivently to CL, and to formal notation
>
> Is this the underlying argument I see lurking into the threads referencing
> CL and natural language?
>
> P
>
>