SUO: Re: Missing Ingredient
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
MI. Note 12
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jay, John, Joshua, Matthew, Murray, Pierluigi, Rich, Roberto, Tom, et alea,
Maybe I should just begin the post-mortem
instead of trying to resuscitate the poor
creature, but let me give it one more try.
JA: | Let us try to approach the question
| of "semantic inter-operability" (SIO)
| by way of the following sub-questions:
|
| 1. What is the "meaning" of a "finite set of sentences" (FSOS)?
|
| 2. What is the "meaning" of a "finite set of tuples" (FSOT)?
|
| 3. How shall we compare the "meanings" of these two?
I meant for Question 1 to express in the simplest possible
terms the principal question of model-theoretic semantics.
I meant for Question 2 to express in the simplest possible
terms the principal question of relational data semantics.
I meant for Question 3 to express in the simplest possible
way the task of "semantic inter-operability" (SIO) itself,
BETWEEN the first two modalities, since I know that many
fine minds have already accomplished many fine results
when it comes to the task of coordination WITHIN the
separate modalities, even if many fine problems are
yet to be solved, as will no doubt always be true.
So far in our latest series of animadversions, or so it seems to me,
just about everyone has proposed that we solve this INTER-modal SIO
problem by steadfastly ignoring the question, and focusing entirely
on the INTRA-modal SIO problems, which are not really all that much
at issue anymore, at least, nowhere near acutely as the inter^2-ops
problem, that is, the job of inter-modal semantic inter-operability.
Does this seem like an accurate picture of the present scene to you?
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o