Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

From: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:51:49 +0200

> 
> >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?  

How would that be different from a proof theory?

> We could even write those rules using RIF.

> I like that idea very much!

You mean using rules that we haven't given meaning to to give meaning to
the rules?  I suspect that there are some potential pitfalls there.

> 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).

Well this is in the entailment rules sections, which are (only) informative. 

peter

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:12:09 UTC