Dear David, (01)
> > The confusion arises from the different meanings of the word "term".
> > Some of you are using it as a synonym for "word or phrase", and
> > some of you
> > are using it the formal sense in which it is used in logic.
> I use word, term, phrase, acronym, abbreviation, initialism, ???? as
> direct or very close synonyms... since that's how I see them used. (02)
MW: Unfortunately, that does not mean that others (in particular logicians)
have to use term as a synonym in that group. (03)
> Pretty much the same way I "file" H2O, water, steam, hail, snow, fog
> & ice under the prettyCloseToSameAs location in my brain. I don't
> see any particular logic in this filing/synonym system... I just had
> to learn it by brute force. (04)
MW: Yes. We have to learn how others use signs, and to disambiguate the
different ways the same sign is used, as well as the different signs that
have very similar interpretations.
> This discussion has been most enlightening... I see language used in
> totally chaotic ways with minimal logic & certainly NO universal logic. (05)
MW: Chaotic, yes, but logic is logic whether you use it or not.
> CONTEXT.... I am talking about the language used inside software
> Most "documents" are stuff written to be read by other humans...
> often corrected by highly skilled humans called editors to make
> better sense.
> I know this is crazy, but I consider software-Algol, Jovial, COBOL,
> Fortran, Java, Objective-C, C, C++, PHP, etc-programs/scripts/code to
> be documents. (06)
MW: Perfectly reasonable.
> Except these are documents that are explicitly NOT written to be read
> by humans. They're written to be read by a compiler. While code
> reviews are known to be one of the most productive activities to
> improve the quality of code & skills of programmers, I think I'm on
> safe ground to say most programmers & programs are NEVER run through
> code reviews. (07)
MW: Yes. What is often missing is the intended interpretation I mentioned
elsewhere. This is best captured by some text definitions that are
sufficiently unambiguous to point you to the thing it is intended to
represent and disambiguate from alternative interpretations. Of course
without these pointers, you might easily adopt an unintended interpretation,
or indeed a false interpretation (which would break the code).
> For me-speaking for all the maintenance programmers scratching their
> heads about what some cryptic label means-"semantics" is the process
> whereby I can easily, quickly & reliably determine that CD & CDE
> actually mean the same thing (CODE). (08)
MW: Nothing beats good documentation.
> So far I do not see how logic, formal or otherwise, can help. I
> believe it can only by definition. (09)
MW: You need to pay attention to all the bits of logic, including model
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (013)
> David Eddy
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (015)