Re: Comments on * DRAFT * Rules Working Group Charter $Revision: 1.60 $

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> > You probably didn't understand the essence of my previous message.
> > 
> > The thing you are talking about doesn't exist -- hasn't been defined yet as
> > far as I know. It is certainly not any form of the NAF that I am familiar
> > with. This is why I compared "unscoped NAF" with the Unicorn.
> > 
> > If you define it rigorously then I could look at it and give you my
> > subjective opinion as to whether this new notion is useful or not.
> 
> Let me try this differently.  There are some features which you seem
> to think should be in scope for the Working Group, but are not
> according to the current draft and what I've been saying.  Can you
> define one (or all) of these features (all which I suspect are related
> to non-monotonicity), in terms every prospective member of the Working
> Group can understand, and give me a simple, specific, motivating use
> case for one of these features?

No, you got me wrong. I do believe that nonmonotonicity is important, but
you already have it in the form of SNAF.

What I pointed out are the *inconsistencies* and *technical problems* with
the draft.

1. The draft says: nonmonotonicity and NAF are out, but SNAF is in.
   This is internally inconsistent, as I explained previously.

2. The draft says that the Lingua Franca will be FOL. Every (or most) rule
   language will be mapped into FOL in a semantically-preserving way.
   This is not possible, as several messages by Dieter and me pointed out.
   
   If you said that the Lingua Franca is going to be SOL (second-order logic)
   then this is possible, but I doubt that you really want to push for that.


	--michael

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 00:12:06 UTC