- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:23:42 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1804 ------- Comment #11 from simeon@us.ibm.com 2006-04-16 04:23 ------- Dear Michael, I did not mean to be discourteous. I apologize is I came accross in that way. I was really hoping to pin-pointed what I though would take us out of this pickle. Let me go back to #6 and your question. I am not sure I understand all of it so I will start with some comments and questions. You write: << The pertinent question is, what things can legally be bound to an italicized non-terminal (e.g., SimpleValue) in a judgment? >> Yes I agree. << My answer is: any syntactic object that is actually derived from the (SimpleValue) non-terminal. >> Yes I think I agree, although I am not completely sure what you mean by 'derive'. More precisely, a non terminal defines a language of syntactic objects. Every syntactic object in that language can be bound to that non terminal in a judgment. << I believe your answer is: anything that could have been derived from the (SimpleValue) non-terminal, whether or not it actually was so derived. >> I am not sure I understand the distinction with the previous statement. There may be many different non terminals that describe the same language, in which case syntactic objects in that language could be bound to either non-terminal. (e.g., MyIntList1 ::= Integer* or MyIntList2 ::= Integer+ | () describe the same set of syntactic objects) << Because Value does not derive SimpleValue (or vice versa), my answer says that you can't bind a SimpleValue object to a Value italicized word (or vice versa). >> I do not understand what you mean by "derive" here. In your previous text, it seems that derive is a relationship between objects and non terminals. Here you are talking about two non terminals. My point in comments #5 and #7 is that every syntactic object that "derives from" (or can be bound to) SimpleValue also derives from Value. In my view, this observation is the ground for why using SimpleValue here is of a proper use. << With (what I believe to be) your answer, there are things (strings of tokens, or abstract values) that can be legally bound to both Value and SimpleValue italicized words, and so such words can unify, and the judgments containing them can match. My problems with that answer are: -- it's a complication without a counterbalancing benefit, and -- there's lots of evidence that the inference process does indeed operate on syntactic objects, not strings of tokens or abstract values. >> Here again, I am not sure I understand the connection. I do believe my interpretation as stated above work on 'syntactic objects' (e.g., 1,2,3 is a syntactic object). And I believe the formal semantics is consistent here on that interpretation. I sincerely hope this more detailed set of responses will help us identify where we are not on the same page. All the best, - Jerome
Received on Sunday, 16 April 2006 04:23:53 UTC