W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Re-expressing our formalisation of Language

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:01:06 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC9D24E03.E9910629-ON852571E1.007DE4B9-852571E1.007E71E5@lotus.com>

Dan Connolly writes:

> I'd be happy to go with the conventions. I find the wikipedia 
> article pretty nice to start from http://en.wikipedia.
> org/wiki/Mathematical_logic

Gee, I'm really torn about that.  On the one hand, as one who's not expert 
in those areas, I'm very excited to discover that these formalisms have 
been so carefully developed.  Not reinventing the wheel seems like the 
right approach. 

Having said that, David Orchard was on the call making the case that even 
my relatively simple efforts to present set theoretic approaches 
separately from programmatic descriptions like XML Schema were a step away 
from the sort of approachable commonsense explanations that our readers 
will be looking for.  Honestly, I find that wikipedia article tough going, 
and I have to believe that many readers of a TAG finding on versioning 
will seek something much easier to understand.  Trying to head in the 
direction you're signaling while writing something that typical finding 
readers will grok looks like a bit of a challenge.  If we can do it, cool!

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 23:01:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:42 GMT