> On 22 Sep 2008, at 16:19, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > > >> I know people coming from a first order background who generally read > >> too much into the "DL" when people say "DL Semantics". Indeed, I've > >> (and many others) have wasted a lot of time trying to get people to > >> believe that the semantics of a DL is just normal first order > >> semantics. > > > > Okay, I guess I'll have to take your word for that. > > Really? is there a problem with taking my word about my own > experience? Interesting. I'm sorry if my words came across as distrustful; it was simply that I had some difficulty reconciling your experience with my own. In my experience, people use the term "DL Semantics" quite comfortably. So when you disagreed, I had some real dissonance, which took a while to sort out. The reality, I'm sure, is that you're talking to different people and in a different context -- I rarely talk to people who have a clue what model theory is, unless they are in this WG, so of course we'd have different experiences here. -- SandroReceived on Monday, 22 September 2008 16:27:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 16:27:41 GMT