Re: [PRD] PRD TF telecon Tuesday 14 October

Gary Hallmark wrote:
> 
> Why don't we focus on the semantics that I propose, which complements 
> Adrian's changes to use a model theory for conditions? Basically, my 
> proposals involve changing the semantic structure according the action.  
> It seems like we need to nail this down before we talk about more 
> actions.  Surely new, assert, and retract are a good starter set of 
> actions.  I propose we stick with these and precisely define their 
> semantics for WD2.

I agree on that. Only, I thought that this would be best discussed after the editorial work had been finalized, at least on a strawman basis. See my other email on that subject.

> [...]
> Will this let us make progress on WD2, only 3 weeks away?  I think it 
> would be better to formalize the semantics and then ask folks to review 
> it in light of implementability of a translator to/from their system.

I hope so. At least, this was the idea :-)

I think that we agree that we must first converge on what semantics is useful (or even neededà and implementable for the actions. I also think that we have, now, the framework to specify that semantics in a clear, unambiguous and implementation independent way, and that, once we agree on what actions and what semantics, we can just add them in the document.

The problem I see is that we do not seem to agree on the semantics of e.g. Assert; that we do not agree on whether or not we need a Modify; etc.

I believe that we cannot progress any further before we reach an agreement on such basic questions.

Cheers,

Christian