[SCL] Proposed additions to the SCL draft standard

[pat hayes]

>
>That said, I still have my concerns about adding annotations at the
>level of abstract syntax.  It seems to me they should be added in
>concrete SCL languages implementations.

But then the concrete syntaxes will not conform to the abstract 
syntax. I think we need to have one 'master' syntax which 
incorporates everything (and can be referred to as a master-plan by 
parser writes) and then restrict it appropriately.

>And don't we now have to
>require that some (fragment of) a natural language be incorporated into
>every SCL lexicon to accommodate the formulation of annotations??

No, all we have to a do is allow annotations to be strings. I would 
prefer that they could be *anything*, in fact, even things like 
datastructures representing parsed structures or WAV files. I see no 
reason to restrict the form of annotations in the abstract syntax in 
any way. As far as SCL is concerned, they are simply chunks of 
information in some arbitrary form which is 'attached' to the SCL 
expression but otherwise has no characteristics whatever, other than 
being what it is.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam at ai.uwf.edu   for spam