Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:18:54 +0200
>From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>  
>Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"  
>To: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
[snip]
>Another point: A Tarskian model theory is also specified using rules...

Francois did not make this error but this comment is a good place to issue a 
caution.

I strongly strongly strongly advise the WG to NOT get all excited by the idea of 
specifying RIF and RIF, or producing a rif.rif document, or any sort of funky 
circular bootstrapping. Saying "oh we can specify foo with RULES and rif is about 
RULES so we can specify RIF in RIF" is a very unfortunate and oftime dangerous 
thought, and almost invariable bad for the specification, however cute and fun it 
may be.

(There are obvious exceptions, but I think being very cautious about such moves 
is wise.)

Cheers,
Bijan.