Re: alternative interlingua
Danny Bobrow <bobrow@parc.xerox.com>
Message-id: <4alit5IB0V0w01R7x7@nero.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 11:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Danny Bobrow <bobrow@parc.xerox.com>
To: bobrow@parc.xerox.com,
pfps@allegra.tempo.nj.att.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider)
Subject: Re: alternative interlingua
Cc: interlingua@vaxa.isi.edu
In-reply-to: <9008110333.AA06662@vaxa.isi.edu>
References: <9008110333.AA06662@vaxa.isi.edu>
Excerpts from mail: 10-Aug-90 alternative interlingua P.
Patel-Schneider@alleg (494)
> The problem that I have with your set of assumptions is that it is possible
> (and easy, and thus probable) to use the interlingua in a manner similar to
> the parody that I presented in my last message. This use of
> side-agreements, as sanctioned by assumption 3B, between, for example,
> CLASSIC and LOOM, subverts the meaning of expressions in the interlingua
> and, in my opnion, makes it of much less interest (although, perhaps, of
> more use) than even the current interlingua proposal.
Peter,
It would make such subversion possible. On the other hand, the social
conventions about using the interlingua should make it appropriate for
people to want to express as much as possible the meaning of their KR
expression in the kernel interlingua (if they wanted to have their
knowledge shared as widely as possible). One would also hope that there
might be a dynamic in the community which encouraged people who suggest
a new feature for the kernel to show how previously unexpressed parts of
an e.g. Classic expression were now expressible appropriately in the
kernel, as were other desirable features. Thus gradually there would be
more complete sharing, even for older KB's.
What is your criteria for "interest" of an interlingua, as opposed to
"utility"?