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

Re: model theory of error

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:15:42 -0500
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <27548.1199992542@cs.sunysb.edu>

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > 
> > Christin says that we should hand-waive in defining the semantics, while I
> > am saying that we should hand-waive in defining compliance.
> > 
> > The result is pretty much the same, but the difference is big: people
> > expect that the semantics is formal and the compliance clause is not.
> Depends what people you are talking to, of course :-)
> So, in making a decision, we must also consider the alternative.
> Especially since I would expect - but I may be wrong - that the people 
> who are our primary target, that is, people who want to implement a 
> standard format for interchanging rules between "established or new rule 
> languages", would have some expectation wrt the compliance clause.

So, if it is a compliance clause, then we pushed the problem to the next level.
Does it mean that I can now go back to work on the document?


> Christian
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:15:52 UTC

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