- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 03 Jan 2002 15:01:48 -0600
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-01-03 at 13:39, Jim Hendler wrote: [...] > All > without taking a side in the particulars, I would like to point > out that there are many kinds of semantics and languages and the > notion of knowing "he meaning of what we write down in that language" > is not as clear as you say -- consider C++ -- seems to be a language > that is quite heavily used, yet I'm having trouble finding either a > model theory or a formal semantics for it. Yikes! C++? Are you sure you're not taking sides, rather subtly? Working on porting a million-line C++ program from solaris to AIX in the early '90s taught me much about the value of formal specifications. The C++ disaster is perhaps the loudest argument in favor of precise formal semantics that I have ever seen! In contrast, take a look at Modula3 some time. "Shamefully, Java didn't steal nearly enough from it." -- http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?ModulaThree I think perhaps the C# guys stole a bit more; I hope to study it more sometime soon... > I think it is important > for all of us to keep in mind that the language we are trying to > create needs to satisfy (as best as possible) many conflicting needs > 1) Need for being able to represent information (KR issues) > 2) Need to be used on the web > 3) Need to be usable by computer for processing in various ways > (implementation issues) > This working group is trying to make sure we come up with a language > that all of us can use for any of these and sometimes the needs will > be in conflict. Please remain very aware that we are engaging in a > CONSENSUS process, and sometimes that requires some give and take on > all sides. > -JH > p.s. Note the W3C Guide [1] is titled "The Art of Consensus" > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 16:01:46 UTC