Difference: BLACKBURNBOS (3 vs. 4)

Revision 42006-12-08 - FabrizioMorbini

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SKIL"

Paper 1

Line: 26 to 26
 In the conclusion they refer to the possibility of using directly in the inference machinery underspecified formulas.

-- FabrizioMorbini - 06 Dec 2006

Added:
>
>
They mention a tradeoff between the demands of expressivity and inferencial effectiveness. There is no such a tradeoff, Len proposed this thought experiment:
  • take a more expressive system EL with its reasoning engine, and a less expressive system FOL.
  • given a query as input, first check if parsable by the FOL system, if yes call the reasoner of FOL to answer it.
  • if not use the reasoner for EL to answer the question.
So, there is no substantial loss in inferencial effectiveness even in a more expressive language.

One certain advantage of using FOL is the availability of many theorem provers.

There is a tradeoff between intensionality and extensionality, in the limit one can add more and more to the domain of discourse and what before was intensional become extensional. Len mentioned that type theory goes in this direction. See Shalom Lappin's type theory.

Problems of davidsonian approaches to representation of temporal relations: negation and references of complex events. Examples given: "It didn't rain for 3 days, the crops was damaged by that." and "The situation of each superpower menacing the other with nuclear weapons lasted for 2 decades.".

-- FabrizioMorbini - 08 Dec 2006

 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding URCS? Send feedback