Re: [xtm-wg] Again: How might we tie more formal semantics to TMs?

["ann.wrightson" <ann.wrightson@leedsalumni.org.uk>]

I think I already said sometime that I think that Situation Semantics and the
associated Logic of Information Flow can provide a good account of how (x)TM (and
OHCO documents) are capable of being carriers of meaningful infomration. I hope to
have a paper on this next year sometime (though Ontopia may keep me too busy....
;-)

However, that is quite different from designing a formal semantics for
(x)TM-in-use so that they can be used alongside other
artefacts-with-formal-semantics, eg in proving system properties for
high-integrity systems.

So, bearing in mind that a formal semantics is an engineering artefact with an
intended purpose like any other,
- what is the intended purpose of a formal semantics for TM, as discussed in
Alexander's mail?
- ... and what criteria woudl you-all wish to apply to decide whether some
proposed semantics was fit for that purpose?

...and BTW, I'm sure that TMQL should have a well-defined semantics - and that
doing so will clarify TM semantics considerably.

And for another parting thought, since a TM can be regarded as a classifier of
ontologies (in terms of some ontology for ontologies... which I hope is a fixed
point...), then maybe we should just let that domain do our semantics for us....

Ciao




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/1/_/337252/_/974223753/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com