Re: [xtm-wg] Identified Objects vs Conceptual Subjects [Re : Formal semantics ...]

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

I'm using Formal Semantics here in the usual sense in computer science. Simply,
a mathematical structure, mapped to the form (syntax) of a notation, which says
something significant (hopefully useful...!) about that notation. There's a
comprehensive survey in the "Handbook of Logic in Computer Science", vols 3 &
4.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I don't think we have much time to spend on
speculative rehashing of definitions....

Cheers

Ann W.

Bernard Vatant wrote:

> "formal semantics" looks to me a weird association if any :
>
> <sam> Semantics : That on what we cannot agree </sam>
>
> Damn' good definition ! But I would add : that on what "we" *have* to agree
> somehow  anyway, by some sort of consensus, ready to change this consensus
> terms depending on who is "we" and what "we" are about.
>
> "Formal" means "syntax". Hence "formal semantics" means "syntax
> semantics" ? Help !
>
> To avoid this kind of mismatching may we could distinguish two fundamental
> Topic Classes :
>
> 1. Identified "Objects" : Individual people, Registered Trademarks,
> Referenced Products, Domain Names, Geographical Administrative Subdivisions
> ... any thing with legal, normative, numerical existence and/or non
> ambiguous identifier. (even Planet Mars could be one of such, for all
> purposes). For TM authors, this kind of Topics *is* its unique identifier.
> Topics of this class should be merged in any TM merging without any
> semantic question. "John Lennon" *is* "John Lennon" in any context.
>
> 2. Conceptual "Subjects" : have only semantic definition, depending on the
> map context, and should never be merged without explicit agreement of map
> authors. e.g : "Musicians" and "Planets" are at this level.
>
> My present line of thought is to consider a valid TM architecture should
> clearly begin by sorting out those two levels, and there should not be
> "ontologic" or "semantic" questions at the first level, with some pragmatic
> consequence: if a semantic question raises at this level, then drive it to
> second floor office, where ontologists serve coffee 24/24.
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.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/_/974405292/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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