Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
> Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:18:54 +0200
>
>   
>> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>     
>>> I agree that there are many ways to approach semantics.  While I'm not
>>> sure I would characterize model-theoretic semantics as more or less
>>> abstract than other approaches, I do fear that a model-theoretic
>>> semantics will be of little help
>>> to the implementors of RIF translators and associated rule engines. 
>>> Looking at other W3C formal semantic specifications for guidance, I
>>> find http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics/ to be a good approach. 
>>> Formal XQuery semantics are specified using RULES.  Why can't we
>>> specify RIF semantics using rules?  We could even write those rules
>>> using RIF.
>>>
>>>       
>> Look, I do not want to start a religious war about "abstract semantics".
>> All what I mean is the following:
>>
>> If S1 is a  semantics specifying more aspects of a language than a
>> semantics S2 for this language, then S1 is more abstract than S2.
>>     
>
> How is S1 more "abstract"?  Isn't it just "incomplete", or "vague", or
> "unfinished"? 
>   

What i mentioned is  the definition I know for "abstract".
>   
>> This is the standard meaning of "abstract" in Computer Science.
>>     
>
> Not in my view, at least not without a whole lot of other caveats.
>   

Please, give a definiton of "abstract" covering the usages of this word
in many fileds such as programming and modseling languages, knowledge
rep[esentation, and also logic...
>> Another point: A Tarskian model theory is also specified using rules...
>>     
>
> I don't think that looking at Tarskian model theory as a set of rules is an
> interesting approach.
>   

Well, it is defined in terms of a function on formulas assigning to each
(sub)formula a truth value.

Pointing to the fact that this is very close to a rule notion, is, in
our context, surely interesting.

François

PS: It has often turned out quite unfortunate to say, in Sciences, "this
is not an interesting approach.  ;-)

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 09:17:26 UTC