- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:23:43 -0600
- 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. http://www.w3.org/Collaboration/knowledge 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