Re: Occam-slashed datatypes

On 2002-02-22 6:00, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

> As promised, brief writeup at
> 
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2.html
> 
> Pat

Pat,

The "Dummies" proposal is not S. Please don't say that. It will
confuse folks to no end, and also incite frustration and
annoyance at (incorrectly) percieved time and effort lost, etc.

The Dummies proposal may use the idioms from S, but it does
*not* employ the MT of S -- which was the whole basis for
discussions/disagreement over the suitability of S.

This is not to trivialize Sergey's invaluable contributions
to this endeavor or to detract in any way from credit and
appreciation due Sergey (or anyone) for their contributions.
The S proposal was instrumental in reaching the point where
we are now. As was also the TDL proposal. The "Dummies"
proposal is a true convergence approach to the truths and
understanding of the problem learned from both.

So, please let's be clear that we are not simply moving backwards
in time to some point when only S was on the table. We're not.

We have progressed miles and miles in our common understanding
of the issues, both technical and practical, since then,
and the "Dummies" proposal reflects a true convergence of that
shared understanding, even if it does not say in the MT what
everyone had perhaps wanted it to say or provide all of the
idioms that everyone had perhaps wanted to use.

OK?

Now.... off to finish reading your definition of it...  ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 04:09:58 UTC