- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@frontiernet.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 07:38:58 -0400
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Francois Bry wrote: > 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. > I, at least, still don't know what you mean. You've said what this abstract specification isn't, but not what it is. Can you give an example? Are you thinking the spec will say things like, "...conjunction means what it usually means..."? That's abstract, for sure, but not unambiguous. In fact, the two words (abstract and unambiguous) are typically at odds. -Chris -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@frontiernet.net Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 11:59:15 UTC