Re[2]: SUO: RE: Architectures for Intelligent Systems
Dear Jean-Luc and Matthew
Friday, April 12, 2002, 3:12:51 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> The core must contain two kinds of knowledge:
>>
>> - A *really* terse logical framework whith which you must have the
>> capability to describe both the syntax and semantics of *any*
>> other formalism: Cyc (willing they to tell us what's in), KIF,
>> CGIF, RDF, Mizar, HOL, ad libitum...
>> This is the reason why I ask for a "high order" formalism.
>> I have some ideas of what it should look like, but it is not
>> finalized.
WMRSI> MW: I agree that something like this is desirable. Common Logic may
WMRSI> will give the basis for this. I am not sure that higher order logic
WMRSI> is necessary though.
We are using already the Second Order Logic possibilities in our meta
repository but suppose it is enough.
Best regards,
Leonid
mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru
=====================================================
Leonid Ototsky,
www.mgn.ru/~ototsky/ototskyhome.html
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru
Russia
=====================================================