W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: a "modest proposal" for PRD

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:46:40 -0800
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0503A8858C@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: Hassan At-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>, "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: "W3C RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Isn't a formal PRD Operation Semantics a somewhat long-term (and academic - as no vendor could probably justify it alone) R&D project? In other words, interesting, but irrelevant to RIF & RIF members for the foreseeable future?

Paul Vincent
[Apologies: won't be joining you in Paris]
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Hassan At-Kaci
> Sent: 20 February 2008 09:55
> To: Gary Hallmark
> Cc: W3C RIF WG
> Subject: Re: a "modest proposal" for PRD
> 
> 
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
> >
> > Start with exactly the BLD syntax.  Add just 1 or 2 "hard" things (e.g.
> > retraction and rule priority) that are common in PR and make a model
> > theory very difficult.  Do not respecify the syntax, just add the new
> > elements.  Develop an Operational Semantics for it, as defined by
> > Plotkin in http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/gdp/publications/sos_jlap.pdf.
> > Do not spend time on informal semantics that can only diverge from the
> > formal semantics.  Only after PRD has caught up with BLD in terms of
> > semantic rigor should it incorporate negation, aggregation, other
> > actions, etc.
> >
> > The task of developing a formal Operational Semantics for PRD is not
> > trivial and would be best attempted by someone who has done something
> > similar before.
> 
> Well said ... I fully agree.
> 
> -hak
> --
> Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
> http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
> 
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 15:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:45 GMT