[ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: CG: Common logic standard for KIF, CGs, and other notations
>From: "John F. Sowa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>As we discussed in earlier notes, the projects for developing ANSI
>and ISO standards for KIF and CGs have been merged into a project
>for developing a common model-theoretic semantics for KIF, CGs,
>and other notations, including the traditional infix notation for
>predicate calculus. Members of the CL (Common Logic) project have
>have also been working with other groups to bring other logic-based
>or logic-like notations, such as RDF, under the same semantic umbrella.
>Users and developers of each notation will determine their own
>syntactic conventions, but any semantic features represented in any
>one of the notations could be mapped into the common semantics.
>Following is a note from Nancy Lawler, who attended the ISO meeting
>in Korea, where a NWI (new work item) was proposed to develop a
>CL standard, which would map to KIF, CGs, and other notations.
>The next ISO meeting will be held in January 2003 in Santa Fe,
>New Mexico. For that meeting, we hope to have well developed
>drafts of the CL standard with mappings to KIF, CGs, and infix
>Meanwhile, I will be sending a series of notes to CG list to discuss
>various topics about the standards that were brought up at ICCS 2002
>in Bulgaria. Philippe Martin has already sent a note to CG list with
>some comments that he raised in the meeting, and I plan to continue
>that discussion in a series of notes to CG list. I hope that everyone
>who has been using and developing CG systems will participate in that
>disucussion to state their preferences, make suggestions, and help
>to evaluate various proposals.
>We would like to get firm decisions on a number of important issues
>before the end of 2002 so that we can have a definitive statement
>of the latest version for the January ISO meeting in Santa Fe.
>Subject: Common Logic/ KIF/ CG standard: status of proposed NWI
>From: "Nancy Lawler" <email@example.com>
>Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:25:04 -0400
>To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
>CC: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
>TO: KIF, CG and Common Logic participants
>I regret not making this year's Conceptual Structures conference, but
>I hope there will be some time during its last two days for people to
>discuss the fledgling ISO standardization effort for CGs, KIF and a
>common semantics for them and other representations of logic.
>Attached are two files. One is an rtf file "ISO WG2 Common Logic"
>derived from the powerpoint slides I used to support a case for adoption
>of a Common Logic/CG/KIF New Work Item at the ISO/IEC TC1 SC32 meeting
>in Seoul in April. The other is the current draft of the NWI Proposal,
>which I hope you will review. The NWI proposal is for a 3 part
>standard. The rationale for separating the parts is that the KIF and CG
>standards are more mature than the Common Logic part, and could proceed
>to Committee Draft status ahead of it.
>The proposal was considered by WG2 (metadata) of SC32, which has several
>members, interested in ontologies for business objects. The NWI for
>Common Logic had been considered at last year's Toronto meeting, but at
>that time there was no consensus in favor of its adoption. The WG 2
>chair pointed out that KIF and CGs have been brought up for ISO
>consideration off and on for at least 10 years with never enough help
>available for the editing. Other members had questions about
>proliferation, redundancy, and whether there is an industrial
>requirement for interoperability that warrants an ISO standard.
>If the Common Logic part of the standard comes together, however,
>this standard may be viewed as a way of managing proliferation of
>logic-related standards, rather than contributing to it.
>For WG 2 to propose a NWI, five countries need to agree to work actively
>on the standard. Over several days of the Seoul meetings, I engaged in
>formal and informal discussions of related technical, organizational and
>historical issues with the other WG 2 representatives. Mike Gruninger
>helped me to recruit interested people from England, Japan, and
>Australia, who contacted their WG2 representatives. Without some
>evidence that there are people within their countries who have a
>requirement for a standard, the members would not have supported the
>proposed NWI. The Japanese representative supported the proposal on the
>condition that it not be called "Common Logic" since that sounded like
>an attempt to standardize mathematics, which he would not support.
>At the end, there were no countries objecting, and I expect that at
>least the following will support it: US, Canada, Australia, Great
>Britain, Japan, Korea.
>Jean Berube of Canada and I agreed to be responsible for the standard
>within WG2. Jean is very experienced in standards work at the ISO level
>and took care of the Petri Net standard for that community. He also
>participates in SC7, which will be handling OCL.
>I anticipate continuity of funding for my participation in WG2 because
>of US government interest in its 11179 Metadata registry standard, so I
>expect to be able to help with this standard as well.
>Progress will require that the researchers, vendors and developers for
>Common Logic, KIF, CGs (and any other language to be brought in later)
>decide among themselves on what changes they want and convey those to
>the editors in WG2. None of these groups has a good process for doing
>this now, however, and not enough members of the Conceptual Graphs
>community have paid attention to the Common Logic effort.
>In the case of contentious issues, individuals can also independently
>lobby their country's representatives to SC32, who can comment on draft
>standards during balloting. WG2 would then be responsible for resolving
>ballot issues and meeting ISO requirements, such as technical quality,
>multilingual interfaces, and coordination with other ISO standards. The
>recently approved revision of Z, which now includes more detailed
>semantics, will create some coordination requirements.
>The committee did not propose a substitute name for "Common Logic", but
>agreed that it can be balloted with the name "NWI for CG and KIF
>(provisional title)". WG2-SED-024 is the number given the project
>document in WG. ISO will give it its own number. After considering any
>issues arising from this note, I'll coordinate with Mike Gruninger and
>John Sowa and give the finished NWI to the WG2 Chair, Larry Fitzwater.
>He stated that he needs the final NWI, and responses from 5 countries
>that they agree on the title and scope, before he'll give it to ISO.
>If all goes well, it would be possible to finish the 90 day balloting
>before the January meeting of SC32 in Santa Fe.
>US Department of Defense
>To post a message, send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
>To unsubscribe, send mail to email@example.com with the command
>'unsubscribe cg' in the message body.
>See http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/ for the mailing list archive
>See http://www.cs.uah.edu/~delugach/CG for the Conceptual Graph Home Page
>For help or administrative assistance, mail to firstname.lastname@example.org (02)