RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

1.  It is the only useful view for an engineer.  See Shannon.

2.  Yes.  Without both rules for co-occurrence constraints and 
grammar, it is expensive and tedious for systems to share states 
because either alone assumes intimate knowledge of the processing 
code of each and sharing a system definition to enable that is 
more expensive than building and sharing the rules and grammar. 
Better that than natural language descriptions because the 
machine can check that. (back to the semantic web thread we go...)

Again, look at the problem of agencies pushing or pulling 
data from authoritative control to authoritative control 
to engage in different processes in each local system.  Just 
going from authoring to publication is tough within a locale, 
but the real problem is going extra-net to the next locale 
in a broadcast model.  Consider that one may move the 
same grammatical production but that in each locale, 
a different rule set is applied.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@home.com]

1)Is this a useful view of "semantics" - that it is a means to choose
between
various sets of rules or perhaps syntaxes?

2) Do the systems people are envisioning need such a capability?