Talk:Operational semantics

Computer science Unassessed High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Could someone provide an example of how operational semantics look like? From the articles it's difficult to tell apart what is the basic difference between operational, denotational and axiomatic semantics. The only intuitive explanation is provided by the Formal semantics of programming languages where it states that denotational is more like compiling the language into a math version, and operational is more like interpreting it.Diego (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking this, too. I've had a go at an illustration of structural operational semantics. It's only an extract — I think a full example would take up to much space. Sam (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very much what I was asking for. Not the theory for a whole program or language, just some snippets to understand how an OS 'feels', i.e. what form have the elements that compose one.Diego (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT called structured operational semantics. Other semantic definitions are also structured (or better be). The point about SOS is that it is guided by the structure of the language in question, which is why it's called structural. So can we remove this "also called structured operational semantics". Gordon Plotkin noted this point oftentimes in his lectures, by the way.

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 16:07, 6 February 2009 EatMyShortz version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]