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.

Yes, there are, but when respecting
[[
  whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something
  about a certain thing, we have to use, in this
  sentence, not the thing itself but its name or
  designation -- Alfred Tarski
]]
the pitfalls can be overcome I believe.
It not complete but I'm trying to apply this at
http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2006/02swap/
and I think it works across JSON, Prolog and N3.

>> 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. 

Right.

>peter

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:49:32 UTC