Re: Quantifier syntax in KIF

• Mail folder: Interlingua Mail
• Next message: phayes@cs.uiuc.edu: "Re: Quantifier syntax in KIF"
• Previous message: Jim Fulton: "Re: Issues about contexts and quantifiers"
• In-reply-to: macgregor@isi.edu: "Quantifier syntax in KIF"
• Reply: phayes@cs.uiuc.edu: "Re: Quantifier syntax in KIF"

Reply-To: cg@cs.umn.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 12:30:18 PDT
From: "Michael R. Genesereth" <mrg@cs.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: genesereth@cs.Stanford.EDU
To: macgregor@ISI.EDU
Cc: sowa <sowa@turing.pacss.binghamton.edu>, cg@cs.umn.edu,
        interlingua@ISI.EDU, srkb@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Quantifier syntax in KIF
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 8 Apr 1993 09:44:50 -0800
Message-id: <CMM.0.90.4.734297418.mrg@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>

Bob,

Yes we have been discussing the possibility of extending quantifier sytax as
suggested by John.  I agree that there is teh possibility of ambiguity if
weALLOW consatructs like (forall (?x s) ....  )  Our plan is to adopt the
dioubly nested synatax for such cases, as you suggest.

(forall ((?x s)) ...)  and , if e decide to do this, (forall ((?x in s))..)

Comments from anyone else on this extension?

mrg