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

Re: [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements: Whatever happened to first-order logic as a requirement?

From: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:09:45 +0200
Message-ID: <447C6039.7090204@ifi.lmu.de>
To: Leora Morgenstern <leora@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org, Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
Hi Leora,

The requirement regarding FOL is under the open issues in the text at
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements

I agree that the current statement on FOL is not really clear, sorry 
about that, but I just copied and pasted this statement from Frank's 
first version on Design Constraints. I'll reformulate this in a second.

As I said in the email, the text below the diagram is under development 
that is why one might get confused at this point. I will address the 
rest of your comments together with Frank when refining the text on 
RIF's DCs.

Thank you for your comments!

Regards,
Paula
> This comment refers both to your diagram as well as to the text 
> following the diagram in the url which you reference below.
>
> Whatever happened to first-order logic as a requirement? This was a 
> requirement that Sandro had originally proposed, and which I 
> championed. Instead, what I see is something considerably weaker: a 
> notion of "no surprises" which is said to be equivalent to some kind 
> of soundness, and a statement saying that "The RIF must support a 
> substantial portion of First-Order Logic." 
>
>
> Not only is this weaker, it doesn't seem very clear. What precisely is 
> this soundness to which you refer? How do you define soundness without 
> the notions inherent in first-order logic, namely truth within a model 
> and derivability?
>
> What precisely is a "substantial portion" of first-order logic? As it 
> stands, the phrase isn't well-defined. Could one have first-order 
> logic with everything but modus ponens? One could argue that that is a 
> "substantial portion" of first-order logic, but obviously that 
> wouldn't make sense. What do you plan to leave out of first-order 
> logic? And why?
>
> Can we put this back on the table, and get first-order logic into the 
> requirements?
>
> I hope we can discuss this at our meeting today.
>
> Best regards,
> Leora Morgenstern
>
>
> *Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>*
> Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
>
> 05/26/2006 07:47 AM
>
> 	
> To
> 	public-rif-wg@w3.org
> cc
> 	Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
> Subject
> 	[RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Frank and I have merged the requirements proposed in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0234.html
> and the goals, CSFs, and requirements of the diagram proposed by Frank in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0188.html
>
> The updated version of the DC diagram can be found under
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
>
> Note that the text on goals, CSFs, and requirements for RIF on the above
> given page doesn't correspond yet to the current version of the DC
> diagram; we are working on updating the text on the wiki page too.
>
> Please send comments on the current version of the DC diagram so as to
> be able to finalize the work on RIF's design constraints as soon as
> possible.
>
> Regards,
> Paula
>
>
>


Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 16:04:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:29 GMT