[topicmapmail] Conceptual Graphs are Step 6

[Jack Park]

Thank you Patrick.

I forgot the point that the TMRM allows the designer to specify the 
logics desired. There have been offlist discussions going on between me 
and others, some on this list, some not, about various passions. One of 
mine has always been the work of Douglas Lenat. The provision to allow 
for different logics recalls Cyc's [1] many different interpreters, as 
contrasted to John Sowa's discussions on the CG list where he said, in 
part, this morning:

"What I am proposing is just one logic, in which you add one or more 
axioms for each mode or intentional verb. "

The context for that statement is Sowa's work on the evolution of Common 
Logic, into which he proposes to blend conceptual graphs, and over which 
he will layer a controlled natural language such that you need not be a 
logic geek to use the system.

Cheers,
Jack
[1] http://www.cyc.com and http://www.opencyc.org

Patrick Durusau wrote:

> Jack,
>
> Head down on a number of drafts but there is one point on FOL that I 
> think is important:
>
> Jack Park wrote:
>
>> Useful thread, this.
>>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> I believe TMs can hold graph structures fully equivalent to those of
>>> any CG, but TMs have no standard inferencing model.  CGs do: some
>>> FOL engine that can infer things by using predicate calculus.
>>>
>>> I suspect that any part of CGs which a TM cannot express are related
>>> to their missing FOL engine.  But to me, normal conversion direction
>>> would go from TMs toward logic processing - not the other way around -
>>> so these lacks should present no real problems in any case.  The TM
>>> application software would simply have to take up the slack if a chart
>>> become fodder for somehting besides FOL.
>>>
>
> Topic maps not "missing" an FOL engine. Unlike CGs, you get a choice.
>
> The Topic Maps Reference Model (TMRM) allows you to disclose whatever 
> inferencing that you wish to use, FOL if that is your choice but 
> others as well. In other words, the TMRM allows your choice of 
> inferencing systems or engines and for that choice and its rules to be 
> disclosed.
>
> Some people will find FOL useful, others will prefer other systems or 
> perhaps even wish to be deliberately illogical. There is no basis on 
> which to assume any inferencing system will be deemed equally adequate 
> by all users. So long as the system and it rules are disclosed, the 
> TMRM is perfectly content.
>
> Note that your choice of inferencing, under the TMRM, can be part of 
> the topic map, so there is no need for a separate step.
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
>