Andreas, (01)
Your point supports what Pat and I have been saying: (02)
PH>> The idea of a single syntax with two different
>> incompatible semantics scares me. (03)
AT> We agree on a common information exchange model, such as XML
> or OMT, but everything we really capture is the structure.
> Two models, services, etc. can implement the meaning behind
> these pieces of information completely differently ...
> that's why we are pressing the issue of formal models for
> conceptualizations. (04)
Your example illustrates the common structure (i.e., semantics)
that underlies totally different external syntax. (05)
Other examples are a vibrating string and an electrical
oscillation. The common structure enables us to record a
string quartet and recreate the sound with an amplifier. (06)
That is possible because the semantics, as expressed in
the common differential equations, is identical despite
the seeming difference in syntax. (07)
What Pat and I are arguing against is the use of the same
syntax to confuse totally different underlying structures. (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)
|