- From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:12:28 +0100
- To: "'Graystreak'" <wex@media.mit.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Graystreak [mailto:wex@media.mit.edu] > PFPS asserted: > > If you can understand a specification like Corba or JTAPI > or even the > > meaning of a programming language, like C++ or ML, then you > should be > > able to work your way through a model theoretic > specification. After > > all, RDF and DAML+OIL are a lot more simple than Corba or C++! > > Speaking as a true naif here, no. They're not. I'm not at > all sure what > it means to "understand the meaning of a programming language." To my > knowledge, programming languages don't have meanings. They're just > syntactic sugars, in which programs are written. Sometimes very smart > people can figure out some formal semantics of some of those programs, > provided the programs aren't even a little bit complex. [...] For an example of assigning a meaning to a programming language, check out Mario Wolczko's Ph.D. thesis: "Semantics of Object-Oriented Languages", Mario I Wolczko, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, March 1988. Abstract at [1], from which you can get to the full text. - Peter [1] http://www.wolczko.com/phd-abstract.html
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 08:13:20 UTC