# Re: Implications for KIF

Robert Neches <neches@ISI.EDU>
Message-id: <199305131734.AA15311@quark.isi.edu>
To: sowa <sowa@turing.pacss.binghamton.edu>
Cc: cg@cs.umn.edu, interlingua@ISI.EDU, neches@ISI.EDU
Reply-To: neches@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Implications for KIF
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 13 May 93 05:44:16 -0400.
<9305130944.AA01932@turing.pacss.binghamton.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 10:33:39 PDT
From: Robert Neches <neches@ISI.EDU>

Comments? Other options? Anyone?
>
> So following are the three possible notations for KIF variables
> nested inside of quoted contexts that refer back to points of
> definition outside those contexts:
>
> 1. With the assumption that variables may refer to nonlexical items,
> the nested cat variable would have to be written ,(name ?x) if
> nested one level deep or ,,,(name ?x) if nested three levels deep.
>
> 2. With the assumption that variables always refer to lexical items
> (either literals like numbers and character strings or surrogates
> for external things), the nested cat variable could be written ,?x
> if nested one level deep or ,,,?x if nested three levels deep.
>
> 3. With a KIF parser that was independent of the Common LISP reader,
> the cat variable could always be written ?x whether nested or not,
> and the question of whether variables referred to warm beasties
> or lexical surrogates would not arise.
>
> I prefer option 3 -- not only because it simplifies my job of translating
> to KIF, but also because it makes this last month of philosophical
> discussion irrelevant to the question of how we use KIF.
>
> John
Thanks for the summary, John.
< Despite all our differences re models, I agree with John's preference
< for option 3, i.e., the above representation instead of various "comma"
< and "name" complications. I think quantifying-in is interpretable. -Len
Thanks also, Len.
-- Bob