Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

From: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:49:07 +0200

> >From: jos.deroo@agfa.com
> >Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
> >Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:51:49 +0200
> >
> >> 
> >> >I agree that there are many ways to approach semantics.  While I'm not 
> 
> >> >sure I would characterize model-theoretic semantics as more or less 
> >> >abstract than other approaches, I do fear that a model-theoretic 
> >> >semantics will be of little help
> >> >to the implementors of RIF translators and associated rule engines. 
> >> >Looking at other W3C formal semantic specifications for guidance, I 
> find 
> >> >http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics/ to be a good approach.  Formal 
> >> >XQuery semantics are specified using RULES.  Why can't we specify RIF 
> >> >semantics using rules? 
> >
> >How would that be different from a proof theory?
> >
> >> We could even write those rules using RIF.
> >
> >> I like that idea very much!
> >
> >You mean using rules that we haven't given meaning to to give meaning to
> >the rules?  I suspect that there are some potential pitfalls there.
> 
> Yes, there are, but when respecting
> [[
>   whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something
>   about a certain thing, we have to use, in this
>   sentence, not the thing itself but its name or
>   designation -- Alfred Tarski
> ]]
> the pitfalls can be overcome I believe.

I don't see how the quote addresses the problem I pointed out.

> It not complete but I'm trying to apply this at
> http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2006/02swap/
> and I think it works across JSON, Prolog and N3.

Which part of which file of this directory is germane to this discussion?

[...]

> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

peter