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 21:23:04 +0100
Message-ID: <47867EA8.2070908@ilog.fr>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> [...]  As is, the
> above paragraph is not a model theory but a model-theoretic gobbledeegook.
> If you can turn it into something formal - fine. If not, let's not waste
> time.

I do not think that I said that it was a model theory. Actually, what I 
am trying to say from the beginning is that we should consider _not_ 
giving it a model theory.

I tried to say it on every tune I could imagine and I used that specific 
sentence because when Bijan used it you did not reply that it was mud, 
gobbledeegook or hand-waiving, so I thought that it made sense to you :-)

So, let me attempt a final try, and then I abandon...

I do not propose that we abandon specifying a model-theroretic semantics 
to BLD: I propose that we keep the undefined part of evaluated functions 
and predicates out of BLD. In fact, I do not even propose that: I only 
propose that we consider that option!

>>I understand that alternative (c) would not work if we were chartered to 
>>specify a rule language, but that is one of the benefits of having to 
>>specify "only" an interchange format that it works for us!
> 
> What do you mean by "works for us"? Who is "us".

In that specific sentence, "us" stands for the RIF WG as it is chartered.

And now, for me, it is off to diner and sleep :-)

Christian
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 20:23:25 GMT

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