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

Re: model theory of error [Yes, proposing one!]

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:38:54 +0000
Message-Id: <93E3385B-C92A-4AF8-8370-798405E2F259@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)

On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:29 AM, Michael Kifer wrote:
> It is not easy to "see" something like that. One needs to check,  
> which is
> very time consuming.  My crystal ball says that the chances of  
> breakage are
> over 50%.

As another data point, Christian, I did think about this a couple of  
times, and I ran through two or three ways (including yours and a  
"parameterizable" model theory) to the point of starting email  
because I thought I had a simple, obviously workable compromise. They  
broke hard almost as soon as I started writing them out.

What's wrong, from your perspective, in saying that the default  
semantics are (a), but implementations might not conform to the  
semantics for formulae with built-ins when there is an error?  
Implementations should document whether they conform and this is a  
place where RIF may not be perfectly faithful *by default*.

Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 00:39:06 UTC

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