# Re: Higher-order KIF & Conceptual Graphs

martin@CS.UCLA.EDU (david l. martin)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 11:44:35 -0800
From: martin@CS.UCLA.EDU (david l. martin)
Message-id: <9401211944.AA23728@oahu.cs.ucla.edu>
To: cg@cs.umn.edu, interlingua@ISI.EDU, phayes@cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Higher-order KIF & Conceptual Graphs

> Also the committee might initially address our earlier
>"Hayes/Lehmann dichotomy" between a system with only fully
>logically interpreted predicates, for an entire agent's
>"semantics", and a system combining logically interpreted
>predicates with "primitive" predicates (like Hayes' "VERY-BIG")
>interpretable only outside the system, for practical knowledge
>interchange.
Fritz -
Could I ask for a clarification of the above notion of a system
"with only fully logically interpreted predicates"?
Surely it's always necessary to have at least a few primitive
predicates. Even if everything is defined in terms of set theory,
one begins with a few primitive predicates describing sets.
What about a system which wants to use sense-description predicates
such as "red" - is there any way in which these sorts of predicates
can be fully logically interpreted predicates?
Probably I just don't understand the sense in which you are
thinking of "fully logically interpreted predicates". I am
thinking of predicates which are defined in terms of other
predicates using a "if and only if" connectives.
Thanks for your comments.
- Dave Martin
- martin@cs.ucla.edu