On Wed, March 25, 2009 7:55 pm, [email protected] wrote: > The moral being that I find it very difficult to set up a specification > for P-->S that insists on: If we could set up ANY specification it wouldn't be the problem we have. > being anything beyond a trivial syntax for any P that a small group of > us decide we do NOT understand; > > does profound and meaningful (but complex and both context and > MML2-dependent) transformations to everything in the set {this usage was > understood (in complete detail) by the wise seers of MML2} :-) ?? > > I agree that we have to provide some such transformation! But the notion > of 'getting it right' becomes more elusive with every new example I see. And this is why I worry about trying to make too much of pragamtic convert to strict at this stage. > It is much too much like trying to 'align' natural language with a formal > grammar (actually, that is precisely what it is, if you push 'natural' > only a little). I don't see any push (but then I wouldn't).
James Davenport Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo Otherwise: Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009 IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
