Re: P.S. Re: Model Theory

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> ... mechanism.  In the absence of a workable specification for a construct,
> e.g, reification, and, moreover, one that has good connection to the
> intended meaning of the construct, I am unwilling to include the construct
> in a representation language. ...
> PS:  Actually defaults do have several decent specifications.  However, the
> specifications have very bad computational properties, which make them
> problematic in a *useful* representation language.

Many applications require some way of representing and reasoning with some
constructs for which we don't yet have good to formalize or which can
have bad computational properties.  If we are too inflexible, we will run up
against the "worse is better" phenomenon and create a language that while
arguably the best web KR language from many perspectives is also one which
is just not used by practitioners.  Unfortunately, I don't have a concrete
proposal for how to resolve this tension, but we should try to find one.
Perhaps we can design a pure core that has good facilities and hooks 
to allow people to easily create and experiment with plug-ins and extensions.

Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 09:29:08 UTC