W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more)

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:04:05 -0500
To: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Cc: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <30538.1171382645@cs.sunysb.edu>


It is supposed to be in the architecture document.
Back to the discussion about the structure.

> I meant to say "having that account appear within the document that
> specifies the core". 
> 
> I guess I am back to my initial comment about the section on intended
> models, which is, what purpose does it serve at this point? 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:51 AM
> To: Ginsberg, Allen
> Cc: Gerd Wagner; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more) 
> 
> 
> nobody suggested to incorporate non-classical semantics into the core.
> 
> 
> > > Not being "consistent with classical semantics" doesn't mean 
> > > much for what we are trying to do. No important computational
> > > formalism I'm aware of is "consistent with classical semantics".
> > 
> > What about common logic?
> > 
> > My concern is what having such an account, i.e., essentially
> > incorporating the well-founded semantics as part of the core, would
> > mean to someone implementing a "classical" language (having only two
> > truth values) which is intended to be in compliance with the core or
> > with a FOL dialect of the core?  I am pretty sure you (and Michael)
> > will say there is nothing to worry about, and I don't have any
> > technical counterexamples in mind, so it probably just boils down to
> a
> > difference in perspective.
> > 
> > Allen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gerd Wagner [mailto:wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:43 AM
> > To: Ginsberg, Allen; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
> > Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more) 
> > 
> > > > As far as I understand it, stable model "semantics" is basically
> a
> > > > procedural add-on to classical semantics involving an
> > implementation
> > > > of the closed-world-assumption. 
> > 
> > This is not quite true. It's better viewed as defining a 
> > preference criterion for selecting the indended models of
> > a rule set (as Michael has already stressed) and as a 
> > "refinement" of the (very intuitive) minimal model semantics.
> > 
> > > But from what
> > > I have read (including the Fitting survey you referenced) it does
> > seem
> > > to be a way of formalizing the closed-world-assumption, and that
> > > assumption is not consistent with classical semantics, i.e., logic.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 16:04:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:37 GMT