[SCL] analytic operators and axioms

[Robert E. Kent]

Style smyle! Style is important, but I am more interested in getting the
analytic operators and axioms included in the document in whatever style is
appropriate. I feel that with any of the three parts (synthetic operators,
analytic operators or axioms) missing, then the abstract syntax
specification of SCL is incomplete.

And speaking of style, I have been out of the loop for a while, but I
believe the abstract syntax is related to the programming style of
processing, with the synthetic/constructor operators more compatible with
descriptive programming style (functional programming languages?) and the
analytic/selector operators more compatible with imperative programming
style (algebraic programming languages?). Is this true?

Robert


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tanel Tammet" <tammet at staff.ttu.ee>
To: "SCL" <scl at philebus.tamu.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: [SCL] analytic operators and axioms


> Hi,
>
> Chris Menzel wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:58:35PM -0500, John Sowa wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Robert and Chris,
> >>
> >>I like the following description of the abstract syntax:
> >>
> >>   http://www.ontologos.org/SCL%20Abstract%20Syntax.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>It is more readable than the current SCL document,
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, I do find it virtuously elegant, but more readable?  "There is a
> >collection of analytic/selector operators on SCL formulas with the nine
> >subgroup clusters in one-one correspondence with the nine
> >synthetic/constructor operators (their inverse)..."  Now *I* like that
> >way of talking, but it sure sounds like the same sort of discourse you
> >randomly excoriate in the current document.
> >
> >
>
> I agree. Despite the elegance, it is harder to read than is necessary.
>
> Here is a concrete suggestion regarding the analytic description of
> abstract syntax:
>
> a)  Let us avoid analytic description in the main body of the SCL draft.
>      If we just use synthetic descriptions (the "ordinary" stuff), the
spec
>      is easier to read and shorter.
>
> b)  Let us put the analytic description into the special appendix
>      chapter of the spec. The analytic description does have its
>      nice points, hence why not include it in a way that does not
>      hurt readability of the main body nor influence the
>      presentation of the main body in any way.
>
>      The only thing is that the current analytic description probably
>      needs some minor modifications once the main parts of
>      SCL spec (using synthetic style) are ready, so as to
>      conform exactly to the synthetic presentation.
>
> In this way we should be able to eat our proverbial cake and have it too.
>
> Tanel Tammet
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> SCL mailing list
> SCL at philebus.tamu.edu
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/scl
>