- From: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:57:39 +0200
- To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>, bry@ifi.lmu.de
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
You only have to look at computer algebra systems to see examples of semantic variations. The very elaborate type algebras underlying systems such as Axiom and A# provide one model supports this very explicitly and formally. Mathematics often uses the same notation for several different kinds of integrals. The semantics often agrees on some but not all of an underlying computational domain. It is also common to switch contexts (and hence semantics) as in important step in a derivation. Stan -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:51 PM To: bry@ifi.lmu.de Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: [RIF] Extensible Design From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> Subject: Re: [RIF] Extensible Design Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:07:54 +0200 > Sandro Hawke wrote: > > I'm starting to think that the question "does RIF have semantics" is > > not well formed. Perhaps each particular RIF dialect will have a > > formal syntax and a formal semantics, and RIF on the whole will just > > be some XML packaging machinery (corresponding to the RIFRAF ontology). > > > The "sevaral semantics" approach is in opposition to the "no semantics > approach". It is not unusual for a programming language to allow for > semantic variations. Hmm. Which programming languages fit into this category and how? (Yes there have been variations based on differing underlying machine word sizes, but are there really other differences in standardized languages?) [...] > Francois peter
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 11:57:48 UTC