Re: Responsesgio@darpa.mil (Gio Wiederhold)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 09:27:49 EST
From: email@example.com (Gio Wiederhold)
Message-id: <9111181427.AA05313@ next65.darpa.mil >
Subject: Re: Responses
Cc: SRKB at ISI.EDU@next65.darpa.mil, INTERLINGUA at ISI.EDU@next65.darpa.mil,
ROGER at CI.DEERE.COM@next65.darpa.mil, Neches@darpa.mil
John (sowa), Peter (rathmann), Roger (burkhart), Bob (neches),
I am very much encouraged by the positive and constructive
diurections the discussions on Know. Interchange Standards are
With the mappings and macros that are available, it should be
possible to present programmers not only with graphs as output, but
also with a (linear?) language to manipulate the descriptions within
environments that are within their reach today.
Determining the syntactic limits of checking second-order extensions
seems also relevant.
Is going beyond that necessary at times? Examples? Can there be an
`artificial' syntactical trigger, if needed, for such extensions?