Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
>
> [...]
>
>   
What I mean is that one does not necessarily wants to specify a model
theory or a proof clculus for a logic. Specifying the logical
connectives in an unambigous manner is already a semantics, a more
abstract one than a model theory. 
François

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 09:58:37 UTC