Wacek, (01)
That is the kind of technical nicety that causes normal people
to avoid inviting logicians to social events: (02)
>It is confusing to say that an XML document is well-formed in the sense
>of its conformance to the XML syntax, since:
>
>- this way of speaking is suggestive of that there can be a
>non-well-formed XML document (where 'well-formed' still refers to the
>XML syntax), while
>- a document that does not conform to the XML syntax simply is not an
>XML document. (03)
There are vast numbers of documents whose authors had hoped
that they might meet the standards of an "XML document", but
for one reason or another, there was a syntactic flaw. (04)
In all natural languages, there are adjectives, sometimes
called "privative" adjectives, that deprive the noun of some
attributes it normally has. Examples include "counterfeit
money" or "bad grammar" or "poorly formed sentence". (05)
Such phrases cannot be translated to predicate calculus simply
by taking a predicate P(x) that represents the adjective and
another predicate Q(x) that represents the noun and writing
the conjunction (06)
P(x) & Q(x). (07)
The option of using privative adjectives is a strength of NLs,
not a weakness. I suggest that the documentation used for
formal languages take advantage of that option. I detest the
phrase "abuse of language", which some logicians deliberately
attach to usage which is correct in any NL. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|