- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:02:46 -0500
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Pat, > > As far as I understand, contexts/microtheories and argumentation >are two examples of CycL features that add something to the >semantics and are not just efficiency hacks. OK, OK, I forgot about contexts. I don't think much of contexts in any case, as you know. The argumentation stuff seems to be an inference strategy rather than a different logic, though: it *uses* first-order reasoning, doesn't it? But to get back to the point, what makes CYC 'extensible' , whatever its logic is ?? Pat >guha > >patrick hayes wrote: > >>>pat hayes wrote: >>> >>>>What does that mean? CYCL is a notational variety of FOL, right? >>>>In what way is that 'extensible' ? It doesn't enable one to >>>>extend the model theory. >>>> >>>>Pat >>> >>> >>>Come on Pat. You know better! CycL is way more than that ... Its >>>the kitchen sink of a large scale cafeteria plus >>>many other things thrown into it, discussion of which is probably >>>neither apropos for this mailing list or for polite company ;-) >> >> >>As far as I know, it is not *way* more than that. It has many >>pieces of specialized inference machinery, but most of them perform >>first-order valid inferences, I believe, albeit perhaps by >>nonstandard (and very fast) methods. I realize it has some >>technically non-first-order things built into it involving fixpoint >>semantics, but I bet they could all be transcribed into KIF using >>row quantifiers. And none of it is 'extensible' in any useful >>sense, as far as I know. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. >> >>Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 11:02:38 UTC