W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

FW: [Chat] Common Logic, return of the KIF

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 20:16:23 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101c1de68$b5731df0$887ba8c0@mitchum>
Hash: SHA1

Saw this on chat@fipa.org; contains references to RDF and other
semantic web stuff.

Bill de  hÓra

> -----Original Message-----
> From: chat-admin@fipa.org [mailto:chat-admin@fipa.org] On 
> Behalf Of tim finin
> Sent: 07 April 2002 19:24
> To: chat@fipa.org
> Subject: [Chat] Common Logic, return of the KIF
> I thought this message from John Sowa would be of interest.
> It was posted to the SUO mailing list (see 
> http://suo.ieee.org/ for information and list archives) and 
> describes efforts to revive efforts to develop an ISO 
> standard for a logic interlingua.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: SUO: Common Logic Standard
> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 11:00:39 -0500
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org, cg@cs.uah.edu
> On March 21 and 22, Mike Genesereth hosted a meeting at 
> Stanford University of the working group on the proposed ISO 
> standards for the Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) and 
> Conceptual Graphs (CGs). The minutes of the meeting are 
> posted at the following URL:
>     http://cl.tamu.edu/minutes/stanford-minutes.html
> Since the minutes are rather brief, they may be cryptic to 
> those who did not attend.  I'm writing this note to expand 
> some of the remarks and their implications.
> One of the significant decisions was to choose a new name, 
> Common Logic (CL), for the proposed standard.  The intent is 
> to reduce any bias toward the two starting notations, KIF and 
> CGs, and to emphasize the common basis in first-order logic, 
> as it was originally developed by Frege, Peirce, Schroder, 
> Peano, and many others during the late 19th and early 20th
> centuries.  
> In keeping with that decision, CL will be defined by an 
> abstract syntax, which specifies the major categories, such 
> as Quantifier, Negation, and Conjunction, without specifying 
> any concrete symbols for writing them.  At the abstract 
> level, even the ordering is left undefined so that there is 
> no bias toward a prefix notation such as KIF, an infix 
> notation such as predicate calculus, or a graph notation such 
> as CGs (or Peirce's original existential graphs).
> Since it is impossible to write a purely abstract syntax, the 
> CL standard will also contain grammars for three concrete 
> syntaxes: KIF, CGIF (the CG interchange format), and 
> traditional predicate calculus (TPC) with a Unicode encoding 
> of the commonly used symbols. Each of those grammars will 
> specify how the abstract categories are mapped to the 
> printable (or computer representable) symbols of their 
> notations.  Any of the three concrete notations can be mapped 
> into any of the others by reversing the mapping from concrete 
> to abstract in one notation and then mapping from abstract to 
> concrete in the other notation.
> The standard will also contain a version of model theory 
> defined in terms of the abstract syntax.  The model theory 
> will specify the truth conditions for any abstract statement, 
> and any conforming concrete statement in any syntax that is 
> mapped from that abstract statement would be required to have 
> exactly the same truth conditions. This requirement will 
> ensure identical semantics for statements represented in any 
> concrete syntax that conforms to the standard.
> Besides the three concrete syntaxes that are currently 
> planned for the standard, we also discussed plans for an 
> XML-based syntax that could be mapped directly to the 
> abstract syntax.  For example, the abstract category 
> Conjunction would be expressed differently in each of the 
> three concrete syntaxes.  Instead of giving a separate 
> mapping to XML from each of the concrete syntaxes, it would 
> be simpler to map the abstract category directly to the XML 
> form <conjunction>... </conjunction> without specifying which 
> of the three concrete syntaxes was the original source or the 
> intended target of the information.
> Although the CL project grew out of a collaboration between 
> the KIF and CG communities, we hope that the CL standard can 
> be used for many other languages that have a declarative 
> semantics, such as RDF, UML, DAML, or Topic Maps.  Any 
> language that can be mapped to and from the CL abstract 
> syntax would automatically inherit the same model-theoretic 
> semantics and would therefore be semantically compatible and 
> interoperable with software based on any other languages that 
> adopt the CL semantics.
> Since different languages have different expressive powers, 
> it might not be possible to map every feature of the abstract 
> syntax into each of them.  For KIF, CGIF, TPC, and the XML 
> form, every feature of the abstract syntax will be 
> expressible in the concrete notations.  Other declarative 
> languages, however, might not have the same expressive power. 
>  Such languages could only express a subset of the statements 
> expressible in the abstract syntax.
> Several other questions were also discussed and tentative 
> answers were considered.  Following are the questions, and 
> the most widely accepted answers.  Further discussion of the 
> implications of the various options is encouraged.
>   Q: How will the CL standard relate to the W3C standards for
>      symbols, formats, and naming conventions?
>   A: The CL standard will be compatible with all the accepted W3C
>      standards.  Following are some of the issues:
>       1. There will be an XML representation of the abstract 
> categories,
>          which will conform to all accepted W3C standards.  There
> may 
>          also be XML representations of the concrete syntaxes as
> well.  
>       2. The basic symbol set of both KIF and CGIF does not
> require 
>          any symbols beyond the basic 7-bit ASCII, but it will
> permit 
>          Unicode character strings and identifiers with
> conventions 
>          similar to Java.  TPC notation will require Unicode for
> the 
>          special logical symbols, but they could also be
> represented, 
>          as in HTML and XML, by symbols like &forall; or &exist;.
>       3. The globally unique URIs specified by the W3C could be
> used 
>          in any concrete CL syntax.  URIs may have two parts:
>              doc-id#frag-id
>          where the doc-id identifies a document and the frag-id
>          identifies a fragment within the document.  For any
> concrete 
>          CL notation (KIF, CGIF, TPC, or XML-CL), the doc-id
> would 
>          denote some document that contains a collection of
>          statements in that notation; and the frag-id would be
>          some identifier defined and used in those statements. 
> For 
>          references within a CL document, only the frag-id would
> be 
>          used; but global references to other documents would use
>          both the doc-id and the frag-id.
>   Q: Will CL support unrestricted quantifiers, sorted
> quantifiers, 
>      or restricted quantifiers?
>   A: Some version of sorted or restricted quantification will be
>      supported.  As a result of previous collaboration between
> the 
>      KIF and CG communities, the KIF 3.0 document provided a
> notation 
>      for restricted quantifiers to represent the type lables in
> CGs. 
>      As an example, the following CGIF represents the English
> sentence 
>      "A cat is on a mat":
>         [Cat: *x] [Mat: *y] (On ?x ?y)
>      This graph can be translated to the following statement in
>      KIF 3.0 notation:
>         (exists ((?x Cat) (?y Mat)) (On ?x ?y))
>      In KIF 3.0, Cat and Mat are treated as monadic predicates,
>      and the above statement is semantically identical to the
>      following version, which uses unrestricted quantifiers:
>          (exists (?x ?t) (and (Cat ?x) (Mat ?y) (On ?x ?y))
>      However, some implementers, such as Mark Stickel,
> distinguished 
>      the sort identifiers from the monadic predicates in order to
>      do better syntax checking and to allow improved performance
>      during the theorem-proving process.
>      The consensus was that some version of sorted or restricted
>      quantification will be supported by CL, but no decision was
>      made on the question of strict sorting (which would permit
>      compile-time checking instead of run-time checking).
>   Q: Will CL support contexts?  Will nested contexts be
> permitted? 
>      If so, what is the semantics?
>   A: CL will provide a mechanism for breaking up a collection of
>      statements into contexts, which can be nested arbitrarily
> deep. 
>      The CL identifiers will use segmented notation to specify
> the 
>      nested levels of contexts.  For example, an identifier, such
> as 
>      abc.def.xyz would represent an entity xyz in context def,
> which 
>      is nested in context abc.  The identifier "abc.def.xyz"
> would 
>      correspond to a frag-id within a CL document.  If preceded
> by 
>      a doc-id, it could refer to something in a different CL
> document.  
>      No decision was made on the separator between segments. 
> Another 
>      suggestion was to use the slash, as in abc/def/xyz. The
> semantics 
>      of the contexts is determined by the metalevel facilities of
> CL.  
>   Q: What are the metalevel facilities of CL?
>   A: The details of the metalevel are still undecided, but
> various 
>      participants in the working group have proposals, which they
>      will present later.  Following are some of the suggestions:
>       1. An important reason for contexts is grouping, so that
>          one or more statements or graphs can be identified by
>          a frag-id.  Such grouping would be transparent and would
>          not affect the semantics -- i.e, multiple statements in
> a 
>          context are impliclitly connected by conjunction,
> whether 
>          or not they happen to be grouped in various ways.
>       2. A group of statements in a context may be the argument
> of 
>          a predicate or relation.  The meaning of that context is
>          determined by the axioms that define the relation. 
> Those 
>          axioms must be in a context outside the context that is
>          contained in the argument.
>       3. Tarski's hierarchy of metalevels, as he defined it in
> his 
>          1933 paper, avoids the usual paradoxes about metalevel
>          references.  Some semantics along those lines is being
>          considered, but other alternatives may also considered.
>       4. The metalevel operations will be able to refer to the
>          named contexts and their contents as characterized by
> the 
>          abstract syntax.  Since the abstract syntax is
> independent 
>          of any concrete syntax, it would be possible for a KIF
> or 
>          CGIF statement to refer to the abstract parts of a
> context 
>          independently of the concrete syntax that was used to
> define 
>          the contents of that context.
> For other topics considered, see the minutes.  For any other 
> questions, please reply to the above email lists for discussion.
> John Sowa
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat@fipa.org
> http://www.fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

Version: PGP 7.0.4

Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 15:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC