W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2007

Re: signature terminology (editorial BLD issue)

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:38:41 -0400
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <26582.1190756321@cs.sunysb.edu>


> 
> Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > Jeez, I'm sure glad I didn't have Michael for a professor.
> 
> I'll avoid making any comments about my time having Chris as a teacher
> (he was a grad student, not a prof), since I dropped the class after a
> couple of weeks.  :-)
> 
> > The differences are pretty simple, though:
> > 
> > A signature has a name and a set of expressions.
> > A signature name is just a symbol used to reference the set of expressions.
> > A signature expression is the standard sort of thing you might think of as a 
> > signature
> 
> Right -- that's the part that bugs me.  ("Okay, here we have apples and
> oranges and bananas.  Let's call apples, "bananas".  Now, hand me a
> banana.")
> 
> Here are names that match my intuition:
> 
>      (i) => bool                     a signature 
>      { (i i) => i, (i) => bool }     a signature set
>      MySig                           a signature set name
>      MySig{(i i) => i, (i) => bool}  a signature block ?
>                                      (a signture set with its name)
> 
> A "signature block" assigns the name to the set and has a "return value"
> of being the set, right? Is it worthwhile combine them?  How about just
> having assignment, and using the name, later....
> 
>     MySig = {(i i) => i, (i) => bool}    a name assignment
>                                         
> 
> My problem with "expression" is that it's usually a general term for any
> linguistic construct.  Those things above are all linguistic expressions
> in the signature language, so they all seem like "signature
> expressions".   Maybe some of you can keep track of when a banana is a
> banana and when it's an apple, but that's more work than I want to do
> unless it's really needed.  

So the problem is with the term "signature expression".
If we can come up with a better term then fine.
But your proposal to use "assignment" is not a good one. Traditionally it is
MySig{(i i) => i, (i) => bool} that would be called a signature, and this is
what is associated with symbols.


	--michael  


>      -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 21:38:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:42 GMT