RE: SUO: RE: Topic Maps
Chris,
>As the person who first suggested that we might consider the use of Topic
>Maps can I point out that I explicitly stated "Note that my proposal does
>not in any way argue against either the use of KIF as the normative language
>or controlled english (or whatever) as an informative form.". I simply do
>not believe that people involved in the Topic Maps paradigm have any notion
>of it taking over from notations such as KIF or CG (although, having said
>that, CG's might be a very useful presentation form for topic maps) - they
>are targeted at different but complementary purposes. Topic Maps provide a
>map to resources, they do not replace the resources.
Actually, my primary point was that logic is more fundamental
than any particular notation. I regard KIF, CGs, Topic Maps,
etc., as many different notations, all of which have different
strengths and weaknesses for different applications.
My primary argument was for FOL as a minimal criterion, which
the developers of KIF and CGs expressly considered in their
development. And I would really like to see everybody who has
any notation of any kind to be given the homework exercise of
demonstrating exactly which subset or superset of FOL their
notation is capable of expressing.
John Sowa