- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:18:05 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 01:06 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > > Interpret, a functional mapping from TextSet to InformationSet, > > i.e. a subset of TextSet X InformationSet such that if a,b and c,d > > are in Interpret, then a==c implies b==d > > Why do you call this 'interpret'? Is this supposed to imply something > to the effect that 'infons' are interpretations? > > Main question: Why is this *functional* ?? Hmm... yes, that is arbitrarily different from conventional mathematcial logical terminology. I'd be happy to go with the conventions. I find the wikipedia article pretty nice to start from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic I _think_ that what Henry is proposing is consistent with (i.e. analagous to) the conventional terminology. I was going to spell out the details of the analogy, but that's sorta beside the point. We might as well use the conventional terminology... > This general style of associating meanings to > texts by defining semantic *constraints* on *denotation mappings* > from expressions to *interpretation structures*, with its concomitant > notions of satisfaction, entailment and so on, is extremely > general-purpose, established, successful and supported by a huge > amount of precise and well-understood mathematical development. Meanwhile, I really like the UML diagram. I think maybe I could present the terms Pat is talking about in a UML diagram and the differences might be manageable. I hope to give it some thought... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 22:18:27 UTC