Date:  Fri, 24 Oct 1997 06:12:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710241112.GAA19289@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: David Barton <dlb@WASH.INMET.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: David Barton <dlb@WASH.INMET.COM>
Subject:      Re: machine translation
X-To:         c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199710240133.VAA12623@severn.wash.inmet.com> (message from
              HACKER G N on Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:29:23 +1000)
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1339
Lines: 29

Geoff writes:

   To keep this discussion objective, let me include a snippet from
   the Cyc site itself, about CycL:

   "CycL, the CYC representation language, is a large and
   extraordinarily flexible knowledge representation language. It is
   essentially an augmentation of first-order predicate calculus
   (FOPC), with extensions to handle equality, default reasoning,
   skolemization, and some second-order features. (For example,
   quantification over predicates is allowed in some circumstances,
   and complete assertions can appear as intensional components of
   other assertions.) CycL uses a form of circumscription, includes
   the unique names assumption, and can make use of the closed world
   assumption where appropriate."

First, I note that CycL is proprietary.  There are a large number of
other languages that cover the same territory, including KIF, the Z
notation, and the Larch Shared Language.

   Now, who can tell me whether Lojban is capable of the same power
   and flexibility as this computer language?

Lojban includes Mex, which can encode any predicate calculus
statement.

                                        Dave Barton <*>
                                        dlb@intermetrics.com )0(
                                        http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb