Thanks. Your advice here, seems, fundamentally, like a most sensible choice. 96 (or so*) semantic primitives (e.g. act (generic verb marker), thing and essence (generic noun markers), value(quality and magnitude), able/possible, universal and existential, poset (brings comparatives for ancestry, modal logic, ethics and spatial process) , person, this/that/yonder (as in Navajo -- enables deixis for person, time, evaluative and space modalities), need, sense, and think; adjectival mark, gender, negation (incl. voidance & reflection), time (including past present and poset/hypothetical), space (including those which are metric but non-dimensional, but certainly including directional vectors in nonmetric spaces flavored by vector bundles) , iteration/extrapolation/completion (for continuative aspects of verbs), number, change, the SFOL conjunctions plus preventative and causitive, ..., , plus an appropriate syntax (parentheses plus crossreferences: i.,e., , graphs), I think, suffices to encode most of the non-molecular cognitive reality of humans (and several hypothetical categories of sentient species ). The molecular world populated by halibut, coca-cola, guitars and rhinos is likely to require an open and extensible format, but plain old human thought as expressed in philosophy, teleology and mechanism is likely not to require much more, until, perhaps, we mutate. Of course the expressive power of such a system includes undecidable subsystems and likely allows the derivation of contradictions, but humans have generally not been known to implode under exposure to simple contradictions, so that need not be a problem for inference engines.

So I think a proper full-bodied inferential realm can indeed be hashed out. Providing a forum for that to be done, off-list, seems great since the whatwgers often seem to use "semantics" to refer to something rather different than "meaning" in the sense of human linguistics.

*I rather doubt that the number is prime, though determining that has been shown to be NP-complete for arbitrary monolingual dictionaries.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Hickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: [whatwg] RDFa discussion

It seems that there is a lot of discussion here but I haven't really seen
much progress. Part of the problem seems to be that there are some pretty
fundamental disagreements on what we are trying to do and whether anyone
cares to do it. :-)

In order to better document this back-and-forth, and to reduce the total
number of e-mails I will have to reply to when I eventually deal with this
topic, I would like to invite people to place the goals and requirements
of the technologies being proposed on this wiki page:

I would then like people to place their arguments pro and con each point
on that same page. I have tried to put in some placeholder arguments to
show how that might work.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply via email to