Re: stratml vs cl

This sounds good.  I look forward to learning what it means and 
particularly what we might be able to do together to make sense of it.

What's the next step?

Owen

On 1/9/2020 10:39 AM, carl mattocks wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>