alternative interlingua

pfps@allegra.tempo.nj.att.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider)

Mail folder: Interlingua Mail
Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Interlingua Subgroup Membership"
Previous message: R. V. Guha: "alternative interlingua"
In-reply-to: R. V. Guha: "alternative interlingua"

Message-id: <9008240712.AA00577@venera.isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 07:42:13 EDT
From: pfps@allegra.tempo.nj.att.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider)
To: ai.guha@mcc.com
In-reply-to: R. V. Guha's message of Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:52 CDT <19900817165207.3.GUHA@GAIA.ACA.MCC.COM>
Subject: alternative interlingua
Cc: interlingua@venera.isi.edu

> Posted-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:52 CDT
> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:52 CDT
> From: R. V. Guha <ai.guha@MCC.COM>
> 
>     Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:26:38 EDT
>     From: pfps@allegra.tempo.nj.att.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider)
> 
>     I think that there is no way that the interlingua can be representationally
>     neutral.  It is certainly telling you that FOL is the way to represent many
>     things.
> 
>     peter
> 
> 
> If it can't be completely neutral, then a question to ask is -
> how neutral should it be? For example, it would surely not
> be ok if one *had* to buy into all the paradigms encouraged
> by say classic or cycl. On the other hand, if it says that
> FOL is the way to represent many things, that might be ok.
> 
> Guha
> 

However, the current interlingua goes far beyond "FOL is the way to
represent many things" in a very particular direction.  I find it at least
as constraining as, for example, semantic networks.

peter

PS: The perceived neutrality of a language is probably proportional to how
closely it matches the perceptor's preferred representational paradigm.