Re: Comments on ioctl (was: Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13))

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Brian McBride wrote:

>
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
> > Ah, that is a nice idea. It has some odd consequences, though. Graphs
> > with number labels cannot be stored inside computers, send over
> > packet-switched networks, printed, etc... They have to be Platonic
> > graphs, not data structures. And why stop at numbers? ;-)
>
>
> This sets my antenae twitching.
>
> One of the problems with the earlier M&S document's formal model was that (at
> least in my interpretation of it) the use of platonic statements, platonic
> resources etc led to all sorts of horrible confusion.
>
> This is one of the reasons I felt the need for a model theory and why I
> preferred to have it based on n-triples - because that was clearly a concete
> syntax.  I've bought the idea that the graph is also a concrete syntax, so using
> that is fine.
>
> I personally would be real nervous if we were losing the clarity of that
> distinction between a concrete syntax and what it means.  We'll be back to
> graphs containing resources and questions about what exactly is a resource,
> which so far, we have brilliantly managed not to need to answer.

Forgive me answering this a week late (telecom italia problems last
week), but this isn't as dire as you might think.

The "platonic"/conceptual graphs are as distant from computer
realisations as, say, the relational model is from your RDBMS of choice.
You've _never_ inserted the number 12 into a relational table - except
conceptually*. But such a mental leap is trivial to make.

jan

* Instead, you've done something gritty with wave equations, I don't
doubt.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Usenet: The separation of content AND presentation - simultaneously.

Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 05:24:01 UTC