- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:44:54 -0800
- To: Reto Gmür <reto@wymiwyg.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 02/23/2016 09:12 AM, Reto Gmür wrote: > [...] >> Without any official formal semantics for schema.org or other guidance >> from >> the schema.org people we are reduced to considering the meaning of >> English >> phrases on the schema.org website. > > Could it be triples all the way down? Doesn't the justification chain > typically ends at some definitions in natural language? Well, maybe. There is some stuff that has been machine-validated. (Which then makes the basis some computer code, I guess.) One big reason for formal semantics is to ground on something that is quite precise. Grounding on simple model theories is useful, I think, because there is very little wiggle room left in the definitions and constructions, even though there is, as you say, still a natural language component that has to be considered even if the natural language is some language that mathematicians use to communicate with each other. >> Worse, the phrases used there are generally quite informal. > > This makes it difficult indeed. > > Reto peter
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 19:45:25 UTC