W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: FLD Review part 0.1

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 02:28:20 -0400
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090518022820.4b38661c@kiferserv>
> I suggest this be slightly weakened to use "should" instead of the implied 
> "must", ie "...dialects should be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization..."

"Should" means "you are welcome to ignore," which is not the intent here.
Of course, "must" also means nothing, since there is no provision for RIF
police to enforce it. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that it should be a
"must" to emphasize the intent.

> I can imagine some group wishing to say they have a "logic" dialect even though it is 
> incompatible with FLD.

Incompatible (rather than requiring an extension)? I cannot imagine that.
A logic rule language like that? Why should we be bothered with such an
improbable eventuality?

There are languages, like Mercury or Prolog, that are logic-looking, but
incompatible and not fully based on a logic. If somebody wants to call
such a language "logical" then, as far as RIF is concerned, that category name
is already taken. So they would have to invent a different category.

This is a much cleaner solution, and it also helps prevent confusion.

michael


On Thu, 14 May 2009 23:07:19 -0400
Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Working on my FLD review.  In general I don't think any of my comments are that 
> major or will require any discussion, except potentially:
> 
> In the abstract and overview, I think the standard-speak used is too 
> constraining regarding the requirement of future dialects to implement FLD:
> 
>  >Abstract: "The actual dialects are required to specialize this framework to 
> produce their syntaxes and semantics. "
> 
>  >Overview: "All logic RIF dialects are required to be derived from RIF-FLD by 
> specialization, "
> 
> 
> I suggest this be slightly weakened to use "should" instead of the implied 
> "must", ie "...dialects should be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization..."
> 
> In general, the text is pretty good about saying that FLD may need to be updated 
>   in light of new dialects, but I still think our message is that FLD *should* 
> be used, not *must* be used, in the specification of new dialects.
> 
> Of course one could argue that FLD is only making this requirement of dialects 
> that wish to be called "logic" dialects, but as with the naming of "not", which 
> came down to sort of "who gets the right to call their negation 'not'", I can 
> imagine some group wishing to say they have a "logic" dialect even though it is 
> incompatible with FLD.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 


-- 
    -- michael
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 06:29:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT