W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [UCR] RIF needs different reasoning methods

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:22:51 -0500
Message-Id: <83afed11c0441deeeecc7d9900de4f0d@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>

On Mar 8, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Francois Bry wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> It is a pragmatic point. Applied research and W3C standards are about
>>> pragmatics.
>> I meant in the linguistic sense (i.e., pragmatics vs. semantics). That
>> was a little confusing given my use of the word "marketing".
> I think, applied research and W3C standards are not only about 
> semantics
> (i.e. meaning) but also about pragmatics in the linguistic sense (i.e.
> usage)! :-)

I didn't say or suggest otherwise. But what I'm trying to determine is 
whether these distinctions you want change the semantics of the rule 
set (e.g., by sanctioning different sets of answers).

When you say, "have the same declarative semantics", I read, "has the 
same semantics", and thus, "justifies the same answers to queries". 
Pragmatics might help the use understand what's going on, but, in 
general, they shouldn't change the answers returned. I.e., they are 
like comments.

Now in your prior message you mentioned that termination might be 
different. Does this mean that if I set the rule type bit and the proof 
procedure bit that, in order to process the rule set *correctly*, I 
must return exactly the same answers as that proof procedure? Is it ok 
*not* to actually use the specified proof procedure so long as I 
produce those answers? (Does answer order matter?)

I did go back, and these points are ambiguous in your examples. (I tend 
to think that operational semantics *can* be declarative semantics, or, 
at least, formal. Perhaps that's the source of confusion?)

Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:22:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC