Re: Implications for KIF

Robert Neches <neches@ISI.EDU>
Message-id: <>
To: sowa <>
Cc:, interlingua@ISI.EDU, neches@ISI.EDU
Reply-To: neches@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Implications for KIF 
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 13 May 93 05:44:16 -0400.
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 10:33:39 PDT
From: Robert Neches <neches@ISI.EDU>

Comments?  Other options?  Anyone?

>   So following are the three possible notations for KIF variables
>   nested inside of quoted contexts that refer back to points of
>   definition outside those contexts:
>    1. With the assumption that variables may refer to nonlexical items,
>       the nested cat variable would have to be written ,(name ?x) if
>       nested one level deep or ,,,(name ?x) if nested three levels deep.
>    2. With the assumption that variables always refer to lexical items
>       (either literals like numbers and character strings or surrogates
>       for external things), the nested cat variable could be written ,?x
>       if nested one level deep or ,,,?x if nested three levels deep.
>    3. With a KIF parser that was independent of the Common LISP reader,
>       the cat variable could always be written ?x whether nested or not,
>       and the question of whether variables referred to warm beasties
>       or lexical surrogates would not arise.
>   I prefer option 3 -- not only because it simplifies my job of translating
>   to KIF, but also because it makes this last month of philosophical
>   discussion irrelevant to the question of how we use KIF.
>   John

Thanks for the summary, John.

< Despite all our differences re models, I agree with John's preference
< for option 3, i.e., the above representation instead of various "comma"
< and "name" complications. I think quantifying-in is interpretable. -Len

Thanks also, Len.

	-- Bob