User talk:Rhmccullough

Re: mKR & mKE status

The Afd debate ends only when a consensus is achieved (i.e when a majority is seen after a certain time period). You'll have to wait till then. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I did not know that. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Were all here to help. By the way, I cleaned up your talk page a bit. Also, the general convention is to reply on the other users talk page. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 10:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No such convention. In fact, it's rather irritating, when trying to follow a discussion, to have to pop back and forth across user pages.... most long-time users, as far as I've seen, reply in place. When one edits a page, it automatically is added to the Watchlist, so one knows easily when there is a response there (at least that is the default Preference setting). Sometimes users will pop a note on the other user's talk that they have responded, which then generates the message notice. --Abd (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on MKR (programming language). If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of that policy. What has irritated me is the "underconstruction" aspect. My edits were being deleted while I was in the middle of entering them. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk about where we are in the "underconstruction" phase? Rhmccullough (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I am really unhappy with you, Diligent Terrier. A fine mess you made before you retire.

1. You ignored my "underconstruction" sign, deleting everything that I spent the morning working on.

2. You never discussed your edits with me -- they completely contradict the editorial directions of my last editor.

3. There are a couple of glaring errors in the edits you made.Rhmccullough (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reading some of our notability and neutral point of view policies before going any further. Hopefully, we can work together to improve the article. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's begin with the worst error: mKR:Major features: The brief examples ...

There are no examples at all because you deleted them all. Rhmccullough (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>> Your "Examples Cleanup" on 22:14 20 Jun completely destroyed the meaning of that section & needs "Undo" <<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>> If you will just talk to me, I will explain the problem <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Rhmccullough (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I could wait no longer for someone who has "retired" and may never make good on his offer to improve mKR article. I performed the "Undo" myself. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied below. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 13:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

copy of email
From: Rhmccullough
To: Diligent Terrier
Subject: working together on mKR (programming language)

We're never going to connect by sticking to Wiki pages.
What time zone are you in?
I'm in California (UTC - 8:00), and I'm having so much trouble sleeping,
I can "meet" in the middle of my night if you just tell me when.
I'll mention it now, so you can think about it.  I made a serious booboo calling
those examples "major features".  They're too low level for that.  The best
term I can think of at the moment is "basic features".
There are only 3 features worthy of being called "major features".
A reasonable approach would be for the Lead to advertise a brief discussion
of major features, followed by basic features.
I have no problem discussing neutrality & notability.
I suggest we tackle neutrality first, 'cause that should be the
easiest.
I'm emailing myself a copy of this.
I will copy it onto Rhmccullough talk page.
Dick McCullough
email: [email protected]
phone: 530-541-6220 x5205  (this week only)
Rhmccullough (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to mKR (programming language)

Regarding your edits to mKR (programming language): the examples section strays from the topic and does not belong on Wikipedia. You will also need a citation if you are going to call it user-friendly. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. Let's start with "user-friendly". What kind of Citation are you talking about here? Rhmccullough (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC) To my naive way of thinking, it's obviously user-friendly because it's English-like. Rhmccullough (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Compare to XML, for example. Rhmccullough (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags like 'user friendly' are considered peacock terms here on Wikipedia, and can't really be placed on an article unless you have a reliable third party source stating so. Claiming that it's English like and hence user-friendly constitutes original research - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it again if you can back it up with sources. See C (programming language) for more information of citing these sort of sources. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. For now, I'll just delete it. Rhmccullough (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It was meant to highlight how to cite sources on a programming language.Yes, C is pretty low end. See C++ where there is a citation on the statement C++ is regarded as a middle-level language, as it comprises a combination of both high-level and low-level language features. Statements like these do need sources. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. So -- maybe some day someone (else) will write that mKR is user-friendly. Rhmccullough (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, because the whole time I was designing mKR, I told myself I was designing a user-friendly language. Rhmccullough (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when it becomes notable enough someone will add that point. I would also like to point out that since you created the language, adding terms like 'user-friendly' might show a Conflict of interest, and cause editors to claim you are being promotional about your language. You'd best try to be as unbiased and objective as possible. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely striving to stay unbiased & objective. I just did not understand this whole approach to assessing "user-friendly". I asked several times what people meant about a user-friendly Citation. I just didn't get it then. Rhmccullough (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you another question - to get out in the open now - I have designed mKR so as to be able to say anything (which Ayn Rand would say) about concept formation, axiomatic concepts, etc. Do you think that's in the same category as "user-friendly"??? Rhmccullough (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My focus was on Rand a lot, because those very abstract topics are hard to discuss. But beyond Rand, the objective is really to say anything about anything - because mKR is a general purpose knowledge representation language. Rhmccullough (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should answer on my talk page. That way, I can get back to you sooner. Anyway, from my limited programming experience, what you have outlined, borders on Artificial Intelligence. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On another note, you should take some time off the mKR article, and edit some other articles in your area of expertise. This will help you get a better picture of Wikipedia policies, and will help you better the mKR article in the long run - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I was on your talk page, and there's an edit conflict there. Rhmccullough (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely gets into AI area. Again, I say to myself "mKR is a general purpose knowledge representation language". Do you think that's another thing I'm not supposed to say -- like user-friendly? Rhmccullough (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That statement seems fine. However the mKR article seems to have too much of technical jargon. Please keep the average user in mind when writing the article.

For your information, edit conflicts occur when someone edits and saves the page while you're still in the process of editing it. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Dr.McCullough. Good luck with the article. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict - I gather there are no guarantees to prevent that. Thanks again. Good night. Rhmccullough (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MKR (programming language)

I have nominated MKR (programming language), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Killerofcruft (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Other wikis

It seems fairly likely that the article on mKR will be deleted, for want of sources. However there are other Wikis out there where this content would be more welcome. In particular, wikinfo.org specifically welcomes original research. There might be some wikis specifically devoted to programming languages, also. Friday (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

domain wikinfo.com is now up for sale. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

that was wikinfo.org not .com. --Abd (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The AFD may be too close to call. There is one reasonable argument for deletion: the lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. This is our general standard for inclusion of topics. There are good reasons for this- it helps us ensure neutrality, among other things. But regardless of whether this article is kept in Wikipedia, I wanted to encourage you to write about it at wikiversity.org also. I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Wikiversity is a sister project to Wikipedia, but instead of being an encyclopedia, it's a general-purpose educational resource. The scope is much wider than Wikipedia. There, tutorials are appropriate. They don't have the kind of "no original research" rule that Wikipedia has. Even if the article is kept at Wikipedia, someone might radically shorten it to only what they consider verifiable information. At Wikiversity, this problem won't exist. Friday (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I hope you don't get scared off or offended by this whole ugly AFD process. You seem like you have the expertise required to be a good contributor on various other articles here. Some of these ideas on verifiability and original research are here to protect Wikipedia from advertisers and cranks. You sure don't seem to me like an advertiser or a crank; you seem like a guy with legitimate knowledge to contribute, who is doing a very good job of doing it neutrally. This is part of why I suggest Wikiversity - it'd be a shame to not have this information be freely available somewhere. Friday (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for this Wiki info. I will pursue it. Rhmccullough (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to look at these: Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf, and the esoteric programming wiki (not sure if the latter is applicable, but have a glance anyway). On another note, are there any sources from back when it was called KR/KE ? Searching for "KR language" is a bit unproductive since, as you probably know, that's a generic term. Any ideas? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wiki stuff. I'll look at them. I do account & copy of mKR article at Wikiuniversity.

Now for names: 1997 Icon Newsletter, I unfortunately said kr, ke. Probably changed to KR, KE very soon.

late 2002, I started working with W3C crowd, soon changed to MKR, MKE to avoid confusion. There are 100s of emails at W3C in that era. Also, in that time frame, MKE was available from CNET download.com, plus some others which I don't recall -- I can root through my notes for stuff like that, but may not come up with much. Website in that time frame is probably rhm.cdepot.net and my email address was [email protected].

Early last year, names changed to mKR, mKE. website changed to mKRmKE.org (although I have a backup site). email address changed to [email protected]. I also own domains mKRmKE.net, mKRmKE.com -- but haven't used them much. All 3 domains are currently hosted at the same site - with GoDaddy.

In the early years, I traded a lot of emails with a couple of friends, discussing syntax & meaning & use of mKR. But I don't expect any of those to be archived anywhere. I probably talked about mKR in some other email groups, but again nothing pops into my head at the moment.

One completely different tack. Before I retired (Bell Labs 1960-1984, AT&T Network Systems 1984-1989) I played around with hierarchies & language. I don't think the language was much like mKR at that time. What I did was more like playing with toys. I don't think there was anything very significant. But I probably wrote a few quick & dirty memos for my office mates.

Before about, say 1999, my action syntax had not

yet evolved to today's form. There's a lot documentation of the changes in mKR & mKE after I started [email protected]. By the way, the email group is "KR" instead of "MKR" because I started the group before I changed the name. For the earlier days of mKR, mKE, I just saved the more significant emails on my website & download. They're still there in the same place: KEHOME/kenews. By the way, I think the number of archived emails at Yahoo is close to 500.

Enough stream of consciousness. Can I tell you something more specific which would help you? Rhmccullough (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify what we're looking for. Most of what you list above would be helpful for expanding the article, but what's being looked for right now are a few "foundational" references that justify, not any given statement in the Wikipedia article, but the existence of it in the encyclopaedia at all. In most cases, the "acid test" for this is an independent writeup of some kind by somebody not associated with the subject matter; for example, here is an article which would justify the article on the Ruby programming language. The Icon newsletter notice is probably the closest to this for mKR, as even though it was written by you it was at least passed by the editor. If you can find some writeups by third parties saying something like "Hey, there's a language called mKR, it's good/bad/ugly" then you should get somewhere (note that the opinion they express needn't be entirely positive; you only need to establish that someone took notice, the Wikipedia article will be balanced and neutral anyway). I found this one, but something more than a blog will be nice if you can get one. Let me know if you want more explanation (notability has explanation = ?;) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Later, I did put a few of the Yahoo emails in KEHOME/krnews, but clearly, Yahoo is the best place to look for the later emails. If you get to looking at any of the W3C emails, you can tell when I was active, because you'll see a sudden flurry of emails by me.

User:Abd is putting together a complete mKR Sources page, which may contain unreliable & self-referencing sources. I don't understand the politics or methodology here, but he seems to think it will help. Rhmccullough (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Opening a new section here, to keep the edits from getting out of hand. Grey Knight -- I was thinking languages very early, even wrote one memo at Bell Labs in 1970s. But at that time, I was thinking things like SNOBOL patterns for matching language -- completely different from mKR today. However, I first got introduced to Ayn Rand non-fiction about 1974, and ever since then I knew that genus-differentia definitions had to play a prominent role in the language. I may have had some notion of context at that time, because Ayn Rand made some remarks to the effect that context was all of your previous knowledge. But that was too vague. It was many years before I got the idea of a list of propositions. Aha!!! I just remembered that I came up with that idea during W3C emails -- probably would be about Nov 2002 and later. I developed the idea in the context of a "knowledge diary" -- write down all your knowledge everyday in a diary, and the context is all the things you wrote down before today. The W3C crowd didn't seem very impressed, but for me that was clear validation of the idea that context was a list of propositions. I invented the "knowledge diary" to have a simple explanation of context for W3C people -- that didn't work, but it worked for me. By the way, RDF & OWL still have only a very crude notion of context -- essentially that a particular file of RDF/OWL statements is a context. Even though that says to me, file = list of propositions = context, I don't remember anyone at W3C talking about lists of propositions.

Incidentally, RDF/OWL entity-characteristic-proposition hierarchies have very serious problems. First off, they don't even have entities. Their class is a little bit like an entity, but they confuse that class with the set of all classes. I told them that many times, but they never seem to get upset over all their ambiguities and contradictions.

At the moment, I can't think of any other memorable events which would guide your search for historical records.

I should have mentioned -- there is another source -- which will require some fortitude to go through. KEHOME/knowledge/rhm, which is available at http://mKRmKE.org/knowledge/rhm, and in the download file KEHOME/download/knowledge.zip -- contains 10+ years of thoughts, experiments, notes, other related theories, simple applications of mKE, etc. Usually, I put a date on every file, so you can tell what time period it came from. Sometimes, I left in a whole string of dates which corresponded to the times when I updated the file. There is one link from the main webpage, I think labeled "MKE applications", which goes to a second page, which has links to the more significant applications -- among all those things that I experimented with over the years.

I've finally run down. I'm online here a lot. But if you want to get in touch with me the surest method is email:[email protected].

Rhmccullough (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A brief addendum, before I settled on context = list of propositions, I believe I was thinking context = ECP hierarchy, which is almost the same thing. I think I was using context = ECP hierarchy for many years. Rhmccullough (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops -- there's my engineering intuition fuzzing things up again. mKR says at view = v { ... }; v is the name of the list of propositions, or v is the name of the ECP hierarchy. Rhmccullough (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ID verification

Oh, further to a comment by User:Abd earlier, do you want to stick up some file like http://mkrmke.org/wikipedia.txt that says something to the effect of "I am User:Rhmccullough on the English Wikipedia." ? I don't think anyone really doubts it's you, but as you may have gathered we try to be thorough. :-) I guess if you want you could write it as "Dr McCullough has Wikipedia username = Rhmccullough;" (I've been reading some of your documentation as you can see!). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(This doesn't get any special privileges or anything — it might just come in handy if it turns out to matter whether you're the real deal at some point in the future) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia.txt installed in http://mKRmKE.org/ Rhmccullough (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources

Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's probably little need for that. I moved this stuff to User_talk:Rhmccullough/Sources in case it's useful to you. Friday (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain this to you, Mr. McCullough. The MfD was closed, ultimately, with a Delete decision. That might be reviewed, possibly, but Friday moved the Sources page to your user space. I will request a copy of the deleted article and it's Talk page, for my user space. It will be easier to improve the article in user space, because a user can revert changes in their user space, generally, without limit, allowing defense against any attempts to disrupt the editing. As long as the article is reasonably being prepared for return to article space, it can remain in user space.

In other words, this isn't bad news. If we were unable to improve the article sufficiently by the time another AfD came, and one would, because some of these people are like bulldogs, they don't let go, usually, then it would have been deleted anyway, and the process of improving it would have been more difficult, with certain editors seeing and removing any source that they suspect, and they will apply rigorous standards not necessarily appropriate for the article. So it could be a constant battle. When we get the article ready to go back, we would probably go to Deletion review and ask for the deletion decision to be reversed, based on the new article, and DRV will then decide what to do. Or we will simply recreate the article, and see if it gets AfD'd then, depends on how long we take. The latter can often be less fuss. --Abd (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I am happy with what you propose. I could recreate what I would like in the article very quickly. Then I would welcome any suggestions from you. I have one question for you, already. Should I include Winograd & Iwanska in the history, or just forget about that? Rhmccullough (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of too bad userfying this wasn't done sooner- it could have saved all kinds of silliness and drama. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't going to change its sourcing standards, but if more sources emerge over time, this may become usable yet. I still heavily encourage you to start covering this topic on Wikiversity- the standards are way different there, and your original research will be welcome rather than problematic. Friday (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I already did that -- several days ago. But I haven't done anything significant at Wikiversity, because I've been spending all my time here at Wikipedia. I appreciate your attitude, and your advice. Thanks. Rhmccullough (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Friday and I disagreed about a great deal in the AfD, but he's right about this. Cover the topic on Wikiversity. It's a better environment for the kind of thing you do, you'll be able to do more than could ever be done on Wikipedia (at least under present conditions, and probably ever.). As to Wikipedia and sources, the existing sources, all collected together in a coherent and clean article might survive another AfD, but let's see if we can do better than that.

Philosophically, though, I predict that if Wikipedia doesn't change its sourcing standards -- without abandoning verifiability it's going to die. But it might take quite a while.... Wikipedia has, effectively, for the moment, painted itself into a corner.--Abd (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your work on User:Abd/MKR (programming language)

The article, from one point of view, is coming along nicely. It is now a better introduction to MKR. However, it still has, of course, sourcing problems. I will recommend, I think, that you place a copy of this article on your web page. It will then be usable as a source for what the author of MKR has said about the history and the program.

The article on Wikipedia might be quite a bit more brief, with reference to what is on the MKR web site for more information.

We will still need proof of notability from independent sources before the article, by then edited to meet verifiability standards, can go back into article space.

Theoretically, it shouldn't make any difference, but if the article, when it first goes back, is tight and fully referenced to independent sources, it will politically be more likely to be successful. Then more marginal sources can be used to flesh it out, appropriately handled.

I encouraged you to edit the article at this point without regard to notability or verifiability, to simply make it the best article you could write if (1) you were still required to use Neutral Point of View, but (2) you could use your own experience and knowledge as sources -- but not for "opinions," unless, of course, they are stated as such. "In the opinion of R. H. McCullough, MKR is the greatest thing since sliced bread." You wouldn't say that, of course, unless somehow the relationship of MKR and bread were to become notable.... The more neutral the better.

Let me know when you think the article is ready for a first review, just on the question of how it reads. --Abd (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to place a copy of this article on my web page. Should I mention Wikipedia in some form?

If a "first review" means "is it ready for you to read?", the answer is yes.Rhmccullough (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is okay. On my web page, I added a section entitled "Why did I invent mKR?"

I linked to the article, and put under the title "prepared for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".

Rhmccullough (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

entailment

Hi! I was wondering if you could give me a pointer or two for a computer program I'm toying with; if I have a set of relations (subject-predicate-object triples) and some information about the implications of those relations, is there a more efficient way of figuring out the implied relations other than brute-force running over the list and adding in every new triple that can be found? Perhaps there is a simpler method at least for a query on the full set (for instance, if I say (Bob hasMother Alice) and (Bob hasGender Male), and I issue a query of (Alice hasSon ?), is there a better way than to brute-force produce a "complete" list of relations and then start hunting through it for the target?). This was bugging me a while ago, and I just went to look at it again. I recalled that you had done some work in this field, so thought I'd ask. Thanks! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

mKR associates a "meaning" with every relation; this meaning is a "method" which you can program to do whatever is appropriate in your context. For your example: Bob rel Mother = Alice; Bob has gender = Male; Alice rel Son = ?;

If the gender info. is available before the Mother info., you can do something like this:

rel_Mother is relation with

format = [person:1, person:2],

meaning = { $1 rel Mother = $2;

if $1 has gender = Male;

then $2 rel Son = $1;

fi;};

If the gender info. is only available after the Mother info., then you need to do something like this:

every p isu person; { if child := ? rel Mother = $p;

then if $child has gender = Male; then $p rel Son = $child; fi;

fi;};

Rhmccullough (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that mKR can do this, but what I meant was, is there any part of mKE that can automatically do these things based on a description? And how is that coded behind the scenes? For instance, from the example above, if I can explain to a program that (#1 hasMother #2) implies (#2 hasChild #1) and that (#1 hasChild #2) and (#2 hasGender Male) implies (#1 hasSon #2), could a program (mKE or something else suitably programmed) process a large set of such relationships efficiently? Or is brute force "run through the list and keep adding anything new you find" the only way? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can program all of that into the "meaning" of a relation, so that it uses all info. available at the time. If new info. becomces available, you can re-execute the same "meaning" after the fact. Anything after the fact will have some "brute force" flavor to it. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In mKR, if you're that concerned about efficiency, then you implement the meaning in the Unicon language, instead of the mKR language. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you mean that "entailed" new relations should be added as we go along? So when I add (Bob hasMother Alice), that's when (Alice hasChild Bob) is added. And when I then add (Bob hasGender Male), the system checks for any (#1 hasChild Bob) and establishes (#1 hasSon Bob) on that basis. This seems like it might work, although I'm concerned that more complex relationships might get missed. I'll try to look at it formally and see what I can come up with. I already had an idea for improving the speed of lookups for "implied" relations by maintaining an index of relations by their predicates; I'll let you know how things turn out, if you're interested. Thanks! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know how things turn out. Re: more efficient Unicon programs. The mKE genealogy application has 3 relations whose meanings are implemented in Unicon instead of mKR. Look at KEHOME/src/birth.icn, KEHOME/src/child.icn, KEHOME/src/marry.icn. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:MKR (programming language)

Hello, Rhmccullough. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "MKR".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)