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

Re: universal languages

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:23:43 -0600
Message-ID: <3A7A364F.B20BAB74@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: danbri@w3.org, timbl@w3.org, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> Two appropriate references to Montague logic are a course outline
> (http://semantics.phil.kcl.ac.uk/howard/montague.html) and small piece of a
> web version of a paper on logic and AI by Selmer Bringsjord and David
> Ferrucci (http://www.rensselaer.edu/~brings/LOG+AI/lai/node10.html).
> Neither of these will be enough to understand Montague logic, but if you
> are truely interested, they will at least provide good pointers.

Thanks... hey! small world!

| Thayse 1991 is an articulate discussion of some of the
| limitations of Montague's approach (e.g., anaphora isn't
| accommodated) and some of the proposed
| solutions - solutions that show LAI making genuine progress.
| Anaphoric constructions are handled by infusing Montague's
| approach with Hans Kamp's discourse representation theory (1984).

Hans Kamp was one of my instructors for
the "Logic, Sets and Functions" course I took at U.T.;
that's the first item in my bibliography on knowledge exchange.

He was a great instructor... really animated... I remeber
he used to get so worked up during lectures that spit
would fly out of his mouth.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 23:23:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:33 UTC