• Re: Web Ontology From 6.075 Feet: Modules And Metalanguages

    From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeff Rubard on Sat Feb 5 01:21:09 2022
    On Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 5:31:03 PM UTC-8, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    opense...@graffiti.net (Jeff Rubard) wrote in message news:<49b5d62a.04032...@posting.google.com>...
    "Philipp Lenssen" <in...@outer-court.com> wrote in message news:<c3edod$264usl$1...@ID-203055.news.uni-berlin.de>...
    Jeff Rubard wrote:

    Get What You Want And Want What You Have?: Intrinsic Models Of
    Content As A Guide For Gentle Readerships

    Could you give a small example?
    E.g. a working (or someday working) XHTML snippet.

    Well, no: "questions of detail" are all that this meta-tag methodology permits, i.e. it's an exercise in pointedly makeshift semantics for
    XHTML which does not permit invocation within the language itself (in accordance with the standard scruples you may have learned from
    Donald Davidson's work in college). What this metalanguage does
    To get a sense of what I mean, consider the <def> tag. All credit
    issues aside, the structural import of this tag as applied to a word
    or phrase is that, by virtue of its "definitive" character, the
    document as presented is not properly speaking "recursively
    enumerable" -- that is to say, you're not *really* going to figure out
    what that one part of the document means by considering how it "spins
    out" in terms of evident textual connections (such as you could design
    a recursive function to capture). It's a "rib", rather than a "shim",
    and *encapsulates* the problem this one-shot content model is
    intended to address (by itself being definitive or exemplary of
    recursion a la the previous standard for formal semantics): thusly, it
    should offset those elements in a document which are arguably

    2022 Update: My writing is drivel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)