[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bill de hÓra wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote:
> > I've read all of those documents and there's nothing there that's
> > new since Tarski on the MT front, and the rest is KIF, say, with
> > angle brackets.
>
> Funny you say that. I've read the C# specification and there's
> nothing new in there since Turing, and the rest is C++, say, with
> garbage collection. I don't think either of us should be overly
> disappointed however.
Not comparable. Model-theoretic semantics for formal langauges are two a
penny: pick up any halfway decent textbook on mathematical logic and
you'll find at least one example which in all likelihood will look
quite similar in to the RDF MT in general outline (well, more similar
to the RDF MT than a TM configuration would look to C# code). The only
novelty in the RDF MT is the hoops it has to jump through to align
itself with the awkward informal semantics of pre-MT RDF.
> > So where's the beef?
>
> Why are you asking me? I don't buy into Semantic Web hoopla any
> more than you do.
Umm ... OK, so why are you telling Eliotte to RTFM?
Cheers,
Miles
|
