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

Re: model theory of error

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:07:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4785EE6C.6050701@ilog.fr>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> It is clear like mud.

Ok...

> You still fail to understand that we are supposed to
> give formal semantics: model-theoretic, denotational, operational in that
> order.

Let me try another angle to attempt to get my message through.

How do commonly used implementations of basic logic rule languages (e.g. 
various implementations of Prolog, datalog, whatever) handle the case of 
evaluated functions or predicates when some argument is out of there 
domain of definition?

This is not a rethorical question: I do not know and I do not care to 
check myself if other people in the WG know.

But this is the key question, with respect to making rule interchange 
possible between applications that use these rule languages (and with 
respect to RIF adoption, of course).

Christian.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:07:42 GMT

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