Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

Chris Welty wrote:
>
> Ahem, well, disjunction and conjunction you may be able to get away
> with, but I suspect negation and implication, quantification, and
> variables, predication, and so forth will not be particularly well
> served by such an approach.
>
>
I am not speaking in favour of the approach. I am saying it is a way to
specify a semantics. If you add a little bit of proof calculus, you soon
get a constructive logic   (without model theory like most constructive
logics).

My point is that an interchange language must have a semantics, even a
very abstract (in the sense of very weakly commiting) one  otherwise it
cannot be used for intewrchange.

Francois