To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:22:37 +0700 |
Message-id: | <c09b00eb0902102222h33204c4fg2ad8125c4b595902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Since it seems relevant , and since semantics depends on syntax, I share snippets from the following resource for further discussion http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~slonnegr/plf/Book/Chapter1.pdf "Though it may be difficult to draw the line accurately between syntax and semantics, we hold that issues normally dealt with from the static text should be called syntax, and those that involve a program's behavior during execution be called semantics. Therefore we consider syntax to have two components: the context-fr ee syntax defined by a BNF specification and the context- sensitive syntax consisting of context conditions or constraints that legal programs must obey. " and "The concepts and terminology for describing the syntax of languages derives from Noam Chomsky's seminal work in the 1950s—for example, [Chomsky56] and [Chomsky59]. His classification of grammars and the related theory has been adopted for the study of programming languages. Most of this material falls into the area of the theory of computation. For additional material, see [Hopcroft79] and [Martin91]. These books and many others contain results on the expressiveness and limitations of the classes of grammars and on derivations, derivation trees, and syntactic ambiguity. John Backus and Peter Naur defined BNF in conjunction with the group that developed Algol60. The report [Naur63] describing Algol syntax using BNF is still one of the clearest presentations of a programming language, although the semantics is given informally. Most books on compiler writing contain extensive discussions of syntax specification, derivation trees, and parsing. These books sometimes confuse the notions of concrete and abstract syntax, but they usually contain extensive examples of lexical and syntactic analysis. We recommend [Aho86] and [Parsons92]. Compiler writers typically disagree with our distinction between syntax and semantics, putting context constraints with semantics under the name static semantics. Our view that static semantics is an oxymoron is supported by [Meek90]. Abstract syntax was first described by John McCarthy in the context of Lisp [McCarthy65a]. More material on abstract syntax and other issues pertaining to the syntax of programming languages can be found in various textbooks on formal syntax and semantics, including [Watt91] and [Meyer90]. The book by Roland Backhouse concentrates exclusively on the syntax of programming languages [Backhouse79]." -- Paola Di Maio ********************************* _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Александр Шкотин |
Previous by Thread: | [ontolog-forum] Job vacancy at NIST - opportunity to steer ontology R&D, Steve Ray |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] syntax vs semantics, Pat Hayes |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |