W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-eiif@w3.org > August 2008

Re: metalogic

From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:17:53 +0700
Message-ID: <c09b00eb0808140417q6765fcf4j65ad1cc59cbdd345@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chamindra de Silva" <chamindra@opensource.lk>
Cc: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>

Chamindra

> At the same time, IMO we do not need to be so exhaustive in our definition
> of language and terminology to get software systems to talk to each other.
> Also you are not going to get all groups to agree to the usage of certain
> terms (e.g. victim vs beneficiary). Lets not forget that english is but one
> language, so you will lose a lot in translation to other languages anyway.

Thanks for pointing that out - the metalogic is only the conceptual
reference to support the arguments that were being made, of course we
dont need our model to be that canonical,



> Also I want to emphasize that the systems like OCHA 3W and Sahana have not
> evolved in isolation, but are based on the realities and requirements in the
> field. The terminology used in these systems themselves have evolved based
> on feedback on what is most appropriate and intuitive. Thus you would not go
> far wrong in serving a terminology that works well with the structures of
> these systems.

well, I am not sure. The terminology used in these systems has evolved
based on what portions of the feedback have been taken into account -
having followed the discussions for some years, I am sure you have
taken some feedback on board, but not all of it
Are you still using the word 'victim'  and 'disaster' in your modules?
I think consensus has emerged that s not always  the term of choice
(for example)

But your vocabulary of choice can surely be mapped to other preferred
vocabularies in use, so no need to rewrite anything... just lets avoid
importing unnecessary legacy...


cheers
P
>
> chamindra
> http://chamindra.googlepages.com
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:10 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just to provide background and foundation to some of the arguments in
>> discussion :
>>
>> http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Metalogic
>>
>>
>> Basic Metalogical Properties
>>
>> Metalogic is the study of formal languages from semantic and syntactic
>> perspectives. Among the metalogical properties of formal languages, we
>> will look at some of the most basic and important ones below to get
>> the sense about what the metalogical properties are like. The list
>> consists of soundness, completeness (in at least two important
>> senses), compactness, and decidability.
>>
>> I take the opportunity to state that 'compactness' in our case may
>> refer to have
>> one integreated consistent model, isntead of leaving important bits
>> 'elsewhere'
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paola Di Maio
>> School of IT
>> www.mfu.ac.th
>> *********************************************
>>
>
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:18:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 October 2008 02:05:11 GMT