Talk:Common Logic

Que?

Programs sending each-other programs, what is it intended to do? Provide a slow interpreting distributed operating system? Said: Rursus ☻ 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rursus, what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.205.190 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Updates for providing citations

I have added a number of links that can serve as citations about Common Logic. These can be the citations for existing uncited claims in the article, sources of new claims or both.

Re: "Many other logic-based languages could also be defined as subsets of CL by means of similar translations; among them are the RDF and OWL languages, which have been defined by the W3C." This is approaching original research unless the work by Menzel and Hayes on converting RDF and OWL to Common Logic can be cited - I haven't located that reference yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greentaratoo (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Different Sections for First Edition and (Draft) Second Edition

With the second edition getting ready for its second submission, the article should clearly separate sections pertaining to the two editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greentaratoo (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead should focus on the common (no pun intended) aspects of CL that apply to both editions.

• Re "Common logic (CL) is a framework for a family of logic languages, based on first-order logic, intended to facilitate the exchange and transmission of knowledge in computer-based systems." While essentially true for both editions, some clarity is needed here regarding how CL's expressivity is beyond first order due to sequence markers. "Based" is a weasel word.
• Re "The CL definition permits and encourages the development of a variety of different syntactic forms, called "dialects." Substantially true for both editions, but the second edition may limit CL dialects to those published in the standard, while the first edition explicitly encouraged other parties to create concrete syntaxes and call them Common Logic dialects (after providing verification of conformance.) The remainder of this paragraph is going into detail about conformance conditions for dialects - this belongs in an article section, not in the lead.
• Re "In general, a less expressive subset of CL may be translated to a more expressive version of CL, but the reverse translation is only defined on a subset of the larger language." This statement holds for monotonic logics in general, and is not specific to CL. It would be more helpful to provide a laundry list of CL characteristics, e.g. monotonic, unsorted, signature-free, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greentaratoo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Common logic → Common Logic – "Common Logic" is a name, not a generic term, and is used as a proper noun in authoritative sources see, for example, http://cl.tamu.edu/ Impsswoon (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support proper noun. —Ruud 13:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the editors reasoning for the move. Reliable sources say "Common Logic" as opposed to "Common logic". Mbcap (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.