- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:17:08 -0600
- To: 'Sandro Hawke' <sandro@w3.org>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: 'Olivier Fehr' <Olivier.Fehr@ofehr.com>, Bill de hOra <dehora@eircom.net>, www-tag@w3.org
Fine, Sandro; it just doesn't work for languages where behavioral fidelity is the key requirement, such as real-time 3D rendering systems for simulation and modeling or very large distributed 3D games. "Somewhere a bit must finally change state." C.F. Goldfarb len -----Original Message----- From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] You can also standardize semantics (with our without a concrete syntax) without talking about behavior, as is done for knowledge representation languages like RDF. Informally, the semantics allow each party to make factual statements which others are free to act on as they like. This allows a kind of shared knowledge to emerge -- which I think counts as "interoperation" -- without any comment about behavior. (If we want to talk about which knowledge is really *true* we may need to talk about the behavior of only stating true things, but that's not part of the RDF specs.)
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 09:17:11 UTC