RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

> 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