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

RE: model theory of error

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:44:30 -0800
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E05037E67D7@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Interesting. So: are there any existing model theories for error
handling, or is this new research?

I couldn't find any good references... eg
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q010206359p77327/ 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
> Sent: 10 January 2008 01:18
> To: Christian de Sainte Marie
> Cc: RIF WG
> Subject: Re: model theory of error
> 
> 
> 
> Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> >
> > Michael Kifer wrote:
> >
> > > How do you define an error independently of the evaluation
strategy?
> > > What does it mean to say that "RIF does not mandate any
> > > specific behaviour"? What is "behavior" exactly, if RIF (at least
BLD)
> does
> > > not define any evaluation strategy?
> >
> > Let me try without using the words "error" or "behaviour"...
> >
> > An evaluated function is defined over a domain, and it is undefined
> > outside of that domain.
> >
> > If a function is used in a rule, we assume that any party that
evaluates
> > that rule knows the domain of the function, whether it is specified
> > within RIF (builtin function) or not (application-specific).
> >
> > So, anybody who may have to evaluate the function knows where it is
> > defined and where it is not, and is able to check, before evaluating
it,
> > whether the arguments are in the domain, and the function defined,
or
> not.
> >
> > For the strict purpose of rule interchange, RIF needs to make sure
that
> > all users have the same understanding of the rule - that is, draw
the
> > same inferences - where the function is defined.
> >
> > But does RIF need to guarantee anything beyond the common
understanding
> > that the function is undefined, where it is undefined? Except,
maybe,
> > that such cases must not be handled silently.
> >
> > The same question applies wrt evaluated predicates.
> >
> > Is that any clearer? And, if yes, does it make sense? And, if no, at
> > what step did I take the wrong turn?
> 
> 
> It is clear like mud. You still fail to understand that we are
supposed to
> give formal semantics: model-theoretic, denotational, operational in
that
> order. We decided that for BLD we will give a model-theoretic
semantics.
> If
> you want to redefine the mission - fine.  But make sure you ask for
> another
> 12 months of extension.
> 
> 
> 
> 	--michael
> 
> 
> 
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Christian
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 09:44:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT