W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2001

Re: universal languages

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:48:52 -0500 (EST)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: <timbl@w3.org>, <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102011347560.7674-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: DAMl "Thing" should be Top, Universal class - including concrete types
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:15:52 -0500
>
> > We are not designing a reasoner. We are making
> > a universal language which will allow the expression of information
> > from many [different] systems. When a given system has limited descriptive
> > power, then its input and output will be limited to a subset of the
> > language.
> >
> > Tim
>
>
> OK. In line with this comment from Tim, let me put forward a proposal for a
> universal web language.
>
>
> Requirements:
>
> The universal web language (UWL) will be able to directly represent the
> meaning of any statement about any state of affairs that may be made by any
> application that interacts with the world-wide web.
>
> Language:
>
> I propose that Montague logic be used as the UWL.
>
> Rationale:
>
> Montague logic was designed to capture the meaning of natural logic
> utterances, which should be adequate to represent anything.
>
>
> Any problems with this?



Sounds great. Can you point me to any software I can download to do useful
things on the Web with UWL...?

Dan
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 13:49:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT