Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
1. It is the only useful view for an engineer. See Shannon. 2. Yes. Without both rules for co-occurrence constraints and grammar, it is expensive and tedious for systems to share states because either alone assumes intimate knowledge of the processing code of each and sharing a system definition to enable that is more expensive than building and sharing the rules and grammar. Better that than natural language descriptions because the machine can check that. (back to the semantic web thread we go...) Again, look at the problem of agencies pushing or pulling data from authoritative control to authoritative control to engage in different processes in each local system. Just going from authoring to publication is tough within a locale, but the real problem is going extra-net to the next locale in a broadcast model. Consider that one may move the same grammatical production but that in each locale, a different rule set is applied. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@h...] 1)Is this a useful view of "semantics" - that it is a means to choose between various sets of rules or perhaps syntaxes? 2) Do the systems people are envisioning need such a capability?
|
