From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:42:44 +0100

To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>

Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>, "'Gary Hallmark'" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>

Message-ID: <02db01c95733$2c2aa270$847fe750$@paschke@gmx.de>

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:42:44 +0100

To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>

Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>, "'Gary Hallmark'" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>

Message-ID: <02db01c95733$2c2aa270$847fe750$@paschke@gmx.de>

Dear Michael, Thanks for your review. My answer is with respect to your specific comments 10-12. You are right the notion of state was missing. I now extended the semantics with the notion of states which are represented as a Herbrand Interpretation. The truth valuation of a negated formula is then given with respect to a particular state. Satisfaction of a formula is defined with respect to a state, too. And, a model for a set of formulas is defined by their satisfaction in a computation which is the set of states which you would get according to the operational semantics. As a result you would now get {p,q,s} (which is also the inflationary model of it) from a production rule program p :- q q :- NOT r s :- NOT p as opposed to default negated logical model where you only would get {p, q} but not s. -Adrian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Michael Kifer Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Dezember 2008 09:29 An: RIF WG Public list Betreff: [PRD] review of the frozen draft of Nov 25 Here is a review in fulfillment of my action. michaelReceived on Friday, 5 December 2008 23:43:25 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC
*