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

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[Alexander Sigel]

> my question was not about the (impossible) "correct"
> conceptualization
> of entities, or the (impossible) "correct" respresentation of such
> a conceptualization in a formalism, but simply about:
> 
> given there is consensus by two parties on which of the arbitrary
> formalisms to use, how might it look like (in the exchange syntax)
> to attach semantics to e.g. a topic?
> 
> so TM markup should not have attached a single formal semantic to it.
> noone could decide upon that, as the the intended purposes and usage
> contexts are different.

Aha! To me, this sounds like representing contractual relations with
TMs. Totally hot!

S.


=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- 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/_/974296741/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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