Patrick Blackburn & Johan Bos (2003): Computational Semantics. Theoria 18(1): 27-45. available also here.
Why is it useful? Because built systems will have applications in many areas such as "information retrieval, information extraction, dialogue systems, question answering, interpreting controlled languages...". Then it will be important in progress our understanding of how NL works for example will help in understanding the interrelations between syntax, semantics and inference.
Which logic? It depends on what you want to do, level of detail (linguistics phenomena to represent). They argue that FOL is a good starting point.
How to convert NL to the chosen logical representation? They discuss two approaches: unification-based approaches and lambda-based approaches. The choice here is independent from the logical representation chosen before. They prefer the lambda-based but only because more clean. I should scan through 447 notes to see more details.
How to deal with the ambiguities in NL? The most common approach is underspecification, that means that you build the formal representation leaving ambiguitis and then you resolve them in the logical representation. See the DORIS system for an implemented system (it appears not to work as of today).
Inference they briefly discuss theorem provers and model builders.
In the conclusion they refer to the possibility of using directly in the inference machinery underspecified formulas.
-- FabrizioMorbini - 06 Dec 2006
They mention a tradeoff between the demands of expressivity and inferencial effectiveness. There is no such a tradeoff, Len proposed this thought experiment:
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