[SCL] Re: Formal_Semantics =/= Semantics

[John F. Sowa]

Jon,

I am not putting anything "sub rosa":

JA> I look forward to the appropriate footnote.
> But I am puzzled that you appear to think
> that a proper description of the process
> in question ought to be kept sub rosa,
> and not an integral feature of the
> way that Common Logic represents
> itself to the common populace.

I am ompartmentalizing the various tasks.  The
CL task is very specialized, and it does not and
was never intended to address broader issues of
meaning, semeiotic, or whatever one might call it.

The proposed standard will be a short, succinct
specification for formal languages and interfaces
that exchange information while preserving the
very limited kinds of truth conditions specified
by a Tarski-style model-theoretic semantics.

Please look at the Z standard, the final draft
of which you can get from Frank Farance.  It is
a very dry, very boring presentation, which does,
unfortunately, make an occasional lapse by using
the word "meaning" once or twice.

For the CL draft, which we are planning to produce
by May, I will do my best to keep it as dry and
boring as the Z standard.  In addition, I will
ensure that the word "meaning" does not occur
anywhere in the document.  Furthermore, I will
include a definition of the word "semantics"
which will say that for the scope of the document,
it is intended as an abbreviation for the term
"model-theoretic semantics" and that it should
not be confused with the broader sense of meaning
or semantics as used in ordinary language.

This is not putting "meaning" sub rosa.  It is
banishing it completely from the document.

John