AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI.ARPA (AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws) (10/21/85)
AIList Digest Sunday, 20 Oct 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: Seminar Summary - Situation Theory and Situation Semantics, Conferences - Symposium in Logic on Computer Science & The Computerized Oxford English Dictionary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 16 Oct 85 17:12:46-PDT From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA> Subject: Seminar Summary - Situation Theory and Situation Semantics [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.] CSLI SEMINAR SUMMARY Notes from the STASS Underground October 3, 1985 David Israel gave an overview of the motivation behind the formation of the Group on Situation Theory and Situation Semantics (STASS). The aim of the group is the development of Situation Theory as a framework within which to express, analyse, and compare treatments of a wide range of problems and phenomena. Among the ``applications areas'' are the semantics of natural languages, the semantics of programming and other computer languages, the nature of informational content, the nature of computational processes, problems in the theory of representation, problems about the nature of truth, etc. The method of development is essentially a close and continuous interaction between those working on Situation Theory itself and those looking to use the theory within their own areas of interest. This interaction is enhanced because everybody in the group is doing both things, often simultaneously---though not, of course, equally. In the respect of being a background theory within which to develop theories of more delimited domains, Situation Theory is analogous to Set Theory. Thus, for instance, Montague's treatment of phenomena in the semantics of natural language was carried out within set theory. So, too, was the treatment by Barwise and Perry in ``Situations and Attitudes.'' The crucial transition between the account in that book and the present approach is precisely the abandonment of the strategy (or was it anyway only a tactic?) of modelling all but a small number of basic kinds of things in set theory. Thus, for instance, in ``Situations and Attitudes'' there was no real attempt to explicate the nature of propositions---though much of the interest of the book was said to lie in its treatment of the propositional attitudes. The reason for this uncomfortable state of affairs was that there was no good way of modelling propositions set theoretically. The aim now is a direct, non-reductionist treatment of the various kinds of entities only modelled in the book---thus, of states of affairs and facts, conditions, situations, propositions, etc. This is thought to have a number of happy side effects. One is that it makes it much easier to expose the various modes of modelling to analysis---easier simply because one has not committed oneself to modelling as one's major theoretical technique. The second stems from the fact that Situation Theory is not only analogous to Set Theory in a certain respect; Situation Theory is intended both to encompass and to be modellable by Set Theory. Thus, the demand that Set Theory be capable of providing models of Situation Theory imposes constraints on our conception of sets. A crucial example of such a constraint is that there be non wellfounded sets. --David Israel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1985 20:18 EDT From: MEYER@MIT-XX.ARPA Subject: Symposium in Logic on Computer Science ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS SYMPOSIUM ON LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE JUNE 16-18, 1986, CAMBRIDGE, MASS., USA The Conference will cover a wide range of theoretical and practical issues in Computer Science broadly relating to Logic, including algebraic and topological approaches. Many of these areas have been represented separately, but not in a general LICS conference. Some suggested, not exclusive, topics are: Abstract data types, computer theorem proving, concurrency, constructive proofs as programs, data base theory, foundations of logic programming, logic-based programming languages, logic in complexity theory, logics of programs, knowledge and belief, program verification, semantics of programs, software specifications, type theory. Organizing Committee J. Barwise E. Engeler A. Meyer W. Bledsoe J. Goguen R. Parikh A.Chandra,Chair D. Kozen G. Plotkin E. Dijkstra Z. Manna D. Scott Program Committee R. Boyer W. Damm S. German D. Gries M. Hennessy G. Huet D. Kozen A. Meyer,Chair J. Mitchell R. Parikh J. Reynolds J. Robinson D. Scott M. Vardi R. Waldinger Paper Submission: Authors should send 16 copies of a detailed abstract by Dec. 23, 1985 to the program committee chairman: Albert R. Meyer - LICS Program tele:(617)253 6024 MIT Lab. for Computer Science Arpanet: MEYER@XX 545 Technology Square, NE43-315 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA (If reproduction facilities are not available to the author, a single copy of the abstract will be accepted.) The abstract should be at most 4500 words, but should provide sufficient detail, including references and comparisons to related work, to allow the Program Committee to assess its technical merits. The time between abstract due-date and committee review is short, so late submissions run a high risk of elimination. Authors will be notified of acceptance by Jan. 24, 1986. Photo-ready copies of accepted papers typed on special forms are due March 31, 1986. General Chairman: A. K. Chandra, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, tele: (914) 945-1752, CSNET: ASHOK.YKTVMV at IBM. Local Arrangements Chairman: A. J. Kfoury, Dept. of Computer Science, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, tele: (617) 353-8911, CSNET: KFOURY at BOSTONU. Sponsorship: IEEE Computer Society, Technical Committee on Mathematical Foundations of Computing, in cooperation with ACM SIGACT and Association for Symbolic Logic (request pending). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 17:27:37 edt From: lesk%petrus@mouton.ARPA (Michael E. Lesk) Subject: Conference on the computerized Oxford English Dictionary The University of Waterloo Centre for the New OED is starting research projects using the machine-readable form of the OED now being prepared. The plan is to have not just typesetting tapes, but an electronic database representing the history and use of the English language, as shown in the dictionary. A one-day meeting at Waterloo, from 7pm Thursday Nov. 7 through 4:30pm Friday Nov. 8, 1985, will examine research areas related to the OED and machine-readable dictionaries. The program is: Introduction John Simpson, Oxford University Press, "The New OED Project" John Stubbs, University of Waterloo, "The UW Centre for the New OED" Using On-Line Dictionaries (Michael Lesk, session chair) Henry Kucera, Brown University, "The Problem of Structural Ambiguity in the Lexicon" Donald Walker, Bell Communications Research, "Knowledge Resource Tools for Accessing Large Text Files" George Miller, Princeton University, "Wordnet: A Dictionary Browser" The Use and Misuse of Dictionaries (Neil Hultin, session chair) Gisele Losier, U. Waterloo, "Using the OED for the Study of Loan Words" Christopher Dean, U. Saskatchewan, "The OED: The Study of Local Regional Dialects and Historical Dialet Dictionaries" Knowledge Databases (Robin Cohen, session chair) Randy Goebel, U. Waterloo, "What is a Knowledge Representation System?" John Sowa, IBM, "Using Knowledge Representation to Capture the Semantic Information of a Lexicon" Summary (Frank Tompa, U. Waterloo, plus other session chairs) Those interested in attending should send $25 US or $35 Canadian, along with their name, address and phone numbers, to: Centre for the New OED Dana Porter Library, rm 105 University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************