Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!rggoebel
From: rggoebel@watdaisy.UUCP (Randy Goebel)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: New Topic (technical) - (nf)
Message-ID: <362@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Dec-83 23:12:46 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.362
Posted: Thu Dec 15 23:12:46 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Dec-83 04:48:48 EST
References: <155@tekcad.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 16

Bob Kowalski has said that the only way to represent knowledge is
using first order logic.   ACM SIGART Newsletter No. 70, February 1980
surveys many of the people in the world actually doing representation
research, and few of them agree with Kowalski.   Is there anyone out
there than can substantiate a claim for actually ``representing'' (what
ever that means) ``knowledge?''   Most of the knowledge representation
schemes I've seen are really deductive information description languages
with quasi-formal extensions.   I don't have a good definition of what
knowledge is...but ask any mathematical logician (or mathematical
philosopher) what they think about calling something like KRL a 
knowledge representation language.

Randy Goebel
Logic Programming Group
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1