Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
• Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 15:02:28 -0400 (EDT)
• To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
• Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20060504.150228.104605773.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [RIF] Extensible Design 
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 14:48:24 -0400

> 
> > Well, it seems to me that the proposal by Boley et al advocates precisely
> > this view.  My reading of the proposal is that several (perhaps many) RIF
> > dialects will share the same syntax (or very similar syntaxes) for
> > conditions but will diverge on semantics.
> > 
> 
> Precisely. Semantics will be attached to dialects. There will be no grand
> unified semantics. The idea is to design RIF with as much synergy between
> its different parts as we can manage.
> 
> 
> 	--michael  

But why then require the substitution interpretation for the meaning of
free variables in conditions, particularly as this might give peculiar
results in models where not all domain elements have names?

peter

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 19:02:58 UTC