Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
• Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 05:54:28 -0400 (EDT)
• To: bry@ifi.lmu.de
• Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20060508.055428.38222295.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Subject: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:13:18 +0200

> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Thinking over the weekend of the "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics" issue
> which arises again and again, I would like to submit a few simple views:
> 
> 1. The RIF needs a specification of its meaning, e.g. how conjunctions
> are expressed in RIF. No interchange language can be usfeull if its
> meaning is not specified in some way.
> 
> 2. This "specification of meaning" can be very abstract (= high level),
> and possibly will have to be so.

I don't understand what it means for a "specification of meaning" to be
very abstract.  Perhaps you could give examples of such specifications.

[...]

> François

peter

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 09:55:52 UTC