- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:58:33 +0200
- To: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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