Re: model theory of error

> 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?

Usually they issue an error. But they do not have a model theory for it,
and they do not write a document for W3C saying "this is THE semantics of
...".  They give the semantics in conference papers and do not include
builtins in it.


	--michael  


> 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.
> 
>