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 11:25:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4785F286.6010000@ilog.fr>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Just a small clarification (!), after reading Dave's comment.

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 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?

My point is that, if the most usual ways to handle this kind of errors 
pratically (that is, in computer implementations), are amenable to one 
and the same model theoretic semantics, then it is ok for RIF to specify 
it (well, there are always the costs/benefits to be considered, of 
course, but that's a different question).

Option (b) feels more likely, in that case, but my feeling may not be 
the most relevant in that matter :-)

But if they are not amenable to a single model theoretic semantics of 
error, then we should consider not giving a model theoretic semantics to 
error in RIF.

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:49 UTC