[SCL] Re: request for feedback -- core syntax

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

i think i agree with the gist of this.
all my experience tells me that it is
best to support a computational model
that allows us to understand what the
computer is sposed to be doing rather
than just accepting its results quasi
modo mystified acolytes.  this means
that we must be capable of following
the intermediate steps that begin to
smell suspicious.  all in all, and i
am perfectly aware that this will be
heresy to some, even with respect to
the way that some folks read peirce,
the best conceptual analysis is the
most efficient computational basis.

ja

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Murray Altheim wrote:
> 
> John F. Sowa wrote:
> > Pat, Jay, Tanel, and Murray,
> >
> > We should give a clear statement of who or what
> > is expected to read or write the SCL core syntax.
> >
> >   1. If it's intended for people to read and write,
> >      then human readability is essential.
> >
> >   2. If it is intended as an intermediate language
> >      for programs to read and write then simplicity
> >      in the grammar is more important than human
> >      readability.
> >
> > I have been assuming that SCL core syntax is primarily
> > intended for computational purposes, and people would
> > prefer to use many other notations, such as controlled
> > English (or French, or Estonian, or whatever) or some
> > other previously designed language, such as infix
> > predicate calculus, CGs, TMs, UML, or whatever.
> 
> I agree that SCL may be intended for computational purposes,
> but I would strongly recommend that you take Tanel's advice
> on this, as while it may be that computers process these
> documents, it will be people who write the programs that do
> this, and you can make their job a hell a lot harder by forcing
> them to keep track of things in the syntax that could easily
> be made explicit. If you're going to write requirements for
> the SCL language (which I've long recommended), you might
> enlist common ideas of what makes a good syntax vs. what
> makes a bad syntax, and then you're beginning to get into
> the territory that I'd consider myself a bit of an expert.
> I don't look (frankly) at KIF or CGIF as particularly good
> syntaxes -- there's *lots* of issues with both that need to
> be addressed.
> 
> Explicit, unambiguous, easy to read and author (even by
> hand), easy to debug, with verbosity *not* an issue. And
> never be clever. I haven't met Tanel, but everything I read
> and know about him suggests you should take his opinions on
> syntax very seriously.
> 
> Murray
> 
> ......................................................................
> Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
> Knowledge Media Institute
> The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .
> 
>                     US STATES OF TERROR ALERT
>                          green (low)
>                          blue (guarded)
>                          yellow (elevated)
>                          orange (high)
>                          red (severe)
>                          purple (pucker)
>                          infrared (ultraviolent)

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o