Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Subject: Re: [RIF] Extensible Design
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:07:54 +0200

> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > I'm starting to think that the question "does RIF have semantics" is not
> > well formed.  Perhaps each particular RIF dialect will have a formal
> > syntax and a formal semantics, and RIF on the whole will just be some
> > XML packaging machinery (corresponding to the RIFRAF ontology).
> >   
> The "sevaral semantics" approach is in opposition to the "no semantics
> approach". It is not unusual for a programming language to allow for
> semantic variations.

Hmm.  Which programming languages fit into this category and how?
(Yes there have been variations based on differing underlying machine word
sizes, but are there really other differences in standardized languages?)

[...]

> Francois

peter