Hi John...  (01)
A couple of comments.  (02)
On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:06 , John F. Sowa wrote:  (03)
> Common Logic is something that practitioners can begin using
> today. Although I encourage projects like IFF for the long term,
> there are many short-term projects that can be implemented now:
>
> 1. Adapt the RDF and OWL tools to generate Common Logic as
> a notation for internal processing. The CL notation is
> more compact and efficient for high-performance processing
> of large volumes of data.  (04) 
I don't see how CL notation would be any more suited to high- 
performance processing than RDF or OWL. If I were building CL, RDF or 
OWL implementations, I'd work with whatever internal representation 
(i.e. data structures) and algorithms got the job done consistent with 
the specs.  (05)
> 2. Write translators from UML and SQL to Common Logic.
> That would facilitate the integration of both with the
> Semantic Web tools as well as the huge numbers of working
> systems that were designed in UML and use relational
> databases.  (06) 
Presumably you're talking about the positive fragment of SQL, since 
SQL's "NOT IN" is non-monotonic negation. If NM constructs are 
included, then the compliance story wrt CL is not so easy to tell.  (07)
 .bill  (08)
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444  (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (010)