76 | | |
77 | | (@note embedded comments contain notes) |
78 | | |
79 | | {{{ |
80 | | #!comment |
81 | | |
82 | | Paths to interop - automated translation. |
83 | | |
84 | | Problems of automated translation, limitations of fidelity, violation of FOL. |
85 | | |
86 | | What I think is important though, is that for the latter |
87 | | the *cost* of translating peer to peer or peer to common, |
88 | | by investing in definitional machinery that can then be |
89 | | used to create a cheap, strong translation engine. |
90 | | |
91 | | If we take the top-down approach and run it to its |
92 | | conclusion right down at the FOL level on existing |
93 | | templates we will certainly result in statements that |
94 | | violate FOL. |
95 | | |
96 | | 99% of the definitions that will be imported into the WIP from |
97 | | existing sources will have been arrived at through top-down |
98 | | approaches, and 99% of those again will have no longhands to |
99 | | start with. I think the WIP should be a place people can put |
100 | | things, and then collaboratively develop the longhands for them. |
101 | | |
102 | | But we will very likely find that they are not logically consistent, |
103 | | at least in a first order logic sense. We need to accomodate that |
104 | | reality. |
105 | | |
106 | | }}} |
107 | | |
108 | | ---- |