I noticed that Wikipedia has listed a few text books on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics#Textbooks

Any recommendations on which one might be a "better" read?

Thanks,

Daryoush

2008/9/16 Greg Meredith <lgreg.meredith@biosimilarity.com>:

> Daryoush,
>
> Hopefully, the other replies about proving the monad laws already answered
> your previous question: yes!
>
> As for notions of semantic domain and denotational model, these ideas go
> back quite a ways; but, were given solid footing by Dana Scott. In a
> nutshell, we have essentially three views of a computation
>
> Operational -- computation is captured in a program and rules for executing
> it
> Logical -- computation is captured in a proof and rules for normalizing it
> Denotational -- computation is captured as a (completely unfolded)
> mathematical structure
>
> In the latter view we think of computations/programs as denoting some
> (usually infinitary) mathematical object. Our aim is to completely define
> the meaning of programs in terms of maps between their syntactic
> representation and the mathematical objects their syntax is intended to
> denote. (Notationally, one often writes such maps as [| - |] : Program ->
> Denotation.) For example, we model terms in the lambda calculus as elements
> in a D-infinity domain or Bohm trees or ... . Or, in more modern parlance,
> we model terms in the lambda calculus as morphisms in some Cartesian closed
> category, and the types of those terms as objects in said category. The gold
> standard of quality of such a model is full abstraction -- when the
> denotational notion of equivalence exactly coincides with an intended
> operational notion of equivalence. In symbols,
>
> P ~ Q <=> [| P |] = [| Q |], where ~ and = are the operational and
> denotational notions of equivalence, respectively
>
> The techniques of denotational semantics have been very fruitful, but
> greatly improved by having to rub elbows with operational characterizations.
> The original proposals for denotational models of the lambda calculus were
> much too arms length from the intensional structure implicit in the notion
> of computation and thus failed to achieve full abstraction even for toy
> models of lambda enriched with naturals and booleans (cf the so-called full
> abstraction for PCF problem). On the flip side, providing a better syntactic
> exposure of the use of resources -- ala linear logic -- aided the
> denotational programme.
>
> More generally, operational models fit neatly into two ready-made notions of
> equivalence
>
> contextual equivalence -- behaves the same in all contexts
> bisimulation -- behaves the same under all observations
>
> Moreover, these can be seen to coincide with ready-made notions of
> equivalence under the logical view of programs. Except for syntactically
> derived initial/final denotational models -- the current theory usually
> finds a more "home-grown" denotational notion of equivalence. In fact, i
> submit that it is this very distance from the syntactic presentation that
> has weakened the more popular understanding of "denotational" models to just
> this -- whenever you have some compositionally defined map from one
> representation to another that respects some form of equivalence, the target
> is viewed as the denotation.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> --greg
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:13:53 -0700
> From: "Daryoush Mehrtash" <dmehrtash@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Semantic Domain, Function,  and
>        denotational model.....
> To: "Ryan Ingram" <ryani.spam@gmail.com>
> Cc: Haskell Cafe <haskell-cafe@haskell.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <e5b8e9790809151013k53fdc105i88f2f47f1f9b16bd@mail.gmail.com
>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Interestingly, I was trying to read his paper when I realized that I
> needed to figure out the meaning of denotational model, semantic
> domain, semantic functions.  Other Haskell books didn't talk about
> design in those terms, but obviously for him this is how he is driving
> his design.   I am looking for a simpler tutorial, text book like
> reference on the topic.
>
> Daryoush
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Ryan Ingram <ryani.spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I recommend reading Conal Elliott's "Efficient Functional Reactivity"
>> paper for an in-depth real-world example.
>>
>> http://www.conal.net/papers/simply-reactive
>>
>>  -- ryan
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Daryoush Mehrtash <dmehrtash@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I have been told that for a Haskell/Functional programmer the process
>>> of design starts with defining Semantic Domain, Function, and
>>> denotational model of the problem.  I have done some googling on the
>>> topic but haven't found a good reference on it.    I would appreciate
>>> any good references on the topic.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> daryoush
>>>
>>> ps.  I have found referneces like
>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Denotational_semantics  which
>>> talks about semantic domain for "the Haskell programs 10, 9+1, 2*5"
>>> which doesn't do any good for me.    I need something with a more real
>>> examples.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> L.G. Meredith
> Managing Partner
> Biosimilarity LLC
> 806 55th St NE
> Seattle, WA 98105
>
> +1 206.650.3740
>
> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>