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

Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:51:49 +0200
To: gary.hallmark@oracle.com
Cc: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF099E082E.10C60509-ONC1257168.00771A79-C1257168.007815A4@agfa.com>

>I agree that there are many ways to approach semantics.  While I'm not 
>sure I would characterize model-theoretic semantics as more or less 
>abstract than other approaches, I do fear that a model-theoretic 
>semantics will be of little help
>to the implementors of RIF translators and associated rule engines. 
>Looking at other W3C formal semantic specifications for guidance, I find 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics/ to be a good approach.  Formal 
>XQuery semantics are specified using RULES.  Why can't we specify RIF 
>semantics using rules?  We could even write those rules using RIF.

I like that idea very much!
Looking for instance at pieces of
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
one sees a recurring pattern of
Rule name  | If E contains | then add
(and that is also how we implemented it).

>Francois Bry wrote:
>
>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 
>>
>>>From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
>>>Subject: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
>>>Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:13:18 +0200
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>>>Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>Thinking over the weekend of the "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics" issue
>>>>which arises again and again, I would like to submit a few simple 
views:
>>>>
>>>>1. The RIF needs a specification of its meaning, e.g. how conjunctions
>>>>are expressed in RIF. No interchange language can be usfeull if its
>>>>meaning is not specified in some way.
>>>>
>>>>2. This "specification of meaning" can be very abstract (= high 
level),
>>>>and possibly will have to be so.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>I don't understand what it means for a "specification of meaning" to be
>>>very abstract.  Perhaps you could give examples of such specifications.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>What I mean is that one does not necessarily wants to specify a model
>>theory or a proof clculus for a logic. Specifying the logical
>>connectives in an unambigous manner is already a semantics, a more
>>abstract one than a model theory. 
>>François
>>

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 21:52:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:28 GMT