SUO: Re: RE: RE: Conformance
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
JS(attribution ?): In this discussion I have been taking the position that
the SUO is essentially a posh dictionary, and that the only sensible
conformance statement you can make is of using the terms in it with the
meaning given in the "dictionary", rather than some other meaning.
SR: Modules could be uploaded and registered along with KIF axioms stating
their dependencies to other modules. Then we could add some kind of trust
annotation system for members. Also automated agents could be employed to
search for inconsistencies and publish those as well. Then SUO would become
more of a continual process, rather than this show stopper kind of
parliamentary procedure.
MW: Unfortunately the free for all you propose here is exactly what would
militate against a high quality and integrated "dictionary".
SR: continues ...
Not at all ... in fact quit the opposite! What compensates for the forces
of chaos (to which I believe you refer) is the ability to filter according
to trust and the ability to employ automated agents upon a larger spectrum
of possibility. For example one should be able to filter to only those
modules (or even individual axioms) for which Pat Hayes, Adam Pease, Chris
Menzel, and John Sowa are in agreement. If that is not high enough quality,
then you could add in a West a Whitten and a Swartz ... or if that's too
tight for your taste you could factor in a Awbrey a Berners-Lee a
Loughborough a Palmer a Russell or a Suber .... etc ... i think you might
get my drift.
Now that's what I call posh :)
Seth Russell
A graph models reality,
if every stated or inferred
arrow in the graph corresponds
with a fact in reality.