[sc34wg3] Illustrating SIDPs

[Patrick Durusau]

Ann,

Quite right, as usual.

I have never seen a markup standard, written entirely in formalisms or 
in natural language terms so your point is well taken.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Ann Wrightson wrote:
> I think this latest discussion may be more about another basic difference in
> world-view than about TMRM:
> 
> Patrick said:
> 
> 
>>Formalism would help, but only if we also have agreed upon terms to
> 
> describe what 
> 
>>appears in the formalism.
> 
> 
> Whereas other participants see formalisms as a natural way to disambiguate
> natural language terms and so reach a more precise common understanding.
> 
> It seems to me that both are necessary, neither is primary, and the way
> forward is to go back & forth between words (that are less precise and
> semantically/semiotically richer) and formal notation (that is more precise,
> semantically dependent on definition (usually a mix of formal and natural
> language), and semiotically much poorer). 
> 
> I hope this is helpful...
> 
> Ann W.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> 


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!