Re: D7 - Which languages are better than OWL?
On Monday 07 January 2008 03:14, Philippe Martin wrote:
> > > - "Common Logics is not a good_general_KRL" (that one is
> > > deliberately provocative to spur some contributions; I
> > > only regret that CL is not as expressive as KIF).
>
> ...
>
> Ok, I'll do (and will update the semi-formal summary with the
> objections that will be given to me). However, the designers of CL
> have purposely restricted its expressivity, hence all what my email
> can achieve is to explicit the reasons behind this restriction (and I
> am sure there are good reasons).
I think the experiences, background and perspectives in knowledge
engineering and knowledge representation among the principals involved
in the creation of the CL standard qualify them to express an opinion,
if if it's a biased one, on the suitability of CL as a general KR
language and, of course, to explain the reasons for choosing a mostly
first-order logic formalism. They can also explain how the design
admits a wide variety of surface forms expression of essential CL
content.
> If someone knows a document (email, ...) that lists the reasons for
> these restrictions, please indicate it. I'll either use it to prepare
> my email.
There are various documents on the CL Web site (<http://cl.tamu.edu/>)
and the entire history of the development effort is pretty much
documented in the archive of the mailing list:
<http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/cl/>
> Philippe
Randall Schulz