ANSI standards and knowledge representationErik Sandewall <email@example.com>
From: Erik Sandewall <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 17:41:10 +0200
In-reply-to: Timothy Finin's message of Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:56:21 -0400 <199408181356.AA16838@otto.cs.umbc.edu>
Subject: ANSI standards and knowledge representation
Tim Finin writes
> > Additionally, I propose that the typographical basis should be LaTeX
> > and not ASCII. In other words, rather than defining expressions in the
> > language as sequences of ASCII characters that can be read by
> > COMMONLISP, they should be LaTeX expressions which can both be
> > presented in normal "textbook" style, and can be read by specialized
> > parsers. That overhead is certainly acceptable.
> Interesting idea. Wouldn't SGML be better for this though? SGML was
> designed to capture the structure of a document (which is what's
> important here) rather than the lower level presentation information.
> There are good tools for converting SGML to other document languages,
> such as HTML, LaTeX, RTF, etc so presentation per se is not a problem.
> There is a nice parallel here -- SGML is a kind of interlingua for
> document descriptions which we would then be using as a basis for
> encoding an interlingua for knowledge.
My major reason for proposing LaTeX was as a way of obtaining typography
for real formulae. Document structuring may also be important, but
I would imagine using explicit algol-style codewords (begin module, etc)
even in the final formatted text.
Although there are some arguments in favor of SGML (formal standardization,
usage in WWW, etc), it suffers from
** Horrible syntax for formulae (at least when I last looked at it)
** In general, it seems to be have been designed as an interchange
language between WYSIWYG formatters, whereas LaTeX was designed
to be input and edited by people. I like to have the hands-on contact
that the LaTeX source text offers.