Re: universal languages

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: universal languages
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:48:52 -0500 (EST)
>
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
> > > Subject: Re: DAMl "Thing" should be Top, Universal class - including concrete types
> > > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:15:52 -0500
> > >
> > > > We are not designing a reasoner. We are making
> > > > a universal language which will allow the expression of information
> > > > from many [different] systems. When a given system has limited descriptive
> > > > power, then its input and output will be limited to a subset of the
> > > > language.
> > > >
> > > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > OK. In line with this comment from Tim, let me put forward a proposal for a
> > > universal web language.
> > >
> > >
> > > Requirements:
> > >
> > > The universal web language (UWL) will be able to directly represent the
> > > meaning of any statement about any state of affairs that may be made by any
> > > application that interacts with the world-wide web.
> > >
> > > Language:
> > >
> > > I propose that Montague logic be used as the UWL.
> > >
> > > Rationale:
> > >
> > > Montague logic was designed to capture the meaning of natural logic
> > > utterances, which should be adequate to represent anything.
> > >
> > >
> > > Any problems with this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sounds great. Can you point me to any software I can download to do useful
> > things on the Web with UWL...?
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
>
> Precisely.

:)

One might also point out that XML can "represent anything"... as can
Unicode...

dan

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 13:58:48 UTC