Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 3 Issue 151
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
********************
