- From: Adrian GIURCA <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:12:01 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dear Michael, Michael Kifer wrote: > Adrian, addressing just two of your comments. > > >> I don't agree. If there are two different roles for the terms involved >> in the equality then they are different. We need to distinguish between >> the left part and the right part just if we consider to use the equality >> in a non-commutative way (as an assignment, for example). >> > > Let's not get carried away. We are talking logic, not Pascal. > What assignment are you talking about in logic? > I guess I was not sufficient explicit. I don't understand why we have two different roles namely lhs and rhs. This introduce distinctions of the equality members such that if we want to express commutativity (the logical case) we need a constraint in the model. We don't need any role there. The "assignment" was probably a bad example. > >> Another comment on semantics: TV is a partial order so I believe this >> prepares the future extensions including the management of uncertain >> information. This approach seems to be not a fuzzy one (using different >> implications like Goguen, Lukasiewicz etc). Is this true? Anyway for me >> this is the right direction. May be some people can comment on that. >> > > I think this doesn't preclude fuzzy implication. The order can be total > (partial doesn't preclude total). Of course, the notion of truth value of a > rule will be different, but it will still be an extension of the core. > I know that partial doesn't preclude total. Thanks for explanations. > > > --michael > > -Adrian
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 05:12:20 UTC