From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 17:11:13 +0200

To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>

Cc: Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de, Ankesh <ankesh@cs.rpi.edu>, cawelty@gmail.com, public-rif-wg@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, team-rif-chairs@w3.org

Message-ID: <OF66EC62A1.DCD0DC1E-ONC1257A33.0050F59A-C1257A33.0053700D@fr.ibm.com>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 17:11:13 +0200

To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>

Cc: Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de, Ankesh <ankesh@cs.rpi.edu>, cawelty@gmail.com, public-rif-wg@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, team-rif-chairs@w3.org

Message-ID: <OF66EC62A1.DCD0DC1E-ONC1257A33.0050F59A-C1257A33.0053700D@fr.ibm.com>

Hi Jesse, When I wrote that I would examine your comments, I meant that I would check wrt the spec, which I did not read since a couple months, and think a little bit before responding; but I expect to have a full answer today, or Monday at the latest... And, anyway, I committed to produce a draft of the revised edition by Tuesday, so, in the worst case, you will not have to wait for a very long time :-) As far as I can see from where I stand now, you are right re the membership assertion (although your example rule is not well-formed :-) and re the case of the unbindable action variable; and you are wrong re equality (although I have to check whether and how the value of a constant is defined, since matching an equality is defined with respect to it in PRD, see definition of matching substitution, in 2.2.1). Re membership, I have no doubt that it is pure oversight and that the intent was that a class membership assertion would assert all the class membership according to the class hierarchy. I just have to find out how that was supposed to work, and repair the text accordingly. Re the unbindable action variable, I have to check the discussions that we had about action variables binding before proposing a solution. I hope this helps. More later... Cheers, Christian IBM 9 rue de Verdun 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE Tel./Fax: +33 1 49 08 29 81 From: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu> To: Christian De Sainte Marie/France/IBM@IBMFR Cc: Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de, Ankesh <ankesh@cs.rpi.edu>, cawelty@gmail.com, public-rif-wg@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, team-rif-chairs@w3.org Date: 06/07/2012 16:40 Subject: Re: Apparent inconsistency regarding equality in RIF-PRD Hi Christian. Thanks for responding. I am working on my dissertation in which I use the operational semantics of RIF-PRD as the underpinnings for some formalization. Are there any brief answers that can be given at this time for the three problems? Otherwise, I will have to resolve it in my own way, but I would prefer to align with whatever the revised standard will specify. Jesse Weaver Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/index.xhtml On Jul 6, 2012, at 5:14 AM, Christian De Sainte Marie wrote: Hi Jesse, Thanx for the feedback (which could not be more appropriately timed: indeed, we are preparing a revised edition to correct the errors found in the first edition :-) I will examine the three problems that you have found re equality, subclasses and action variables and let you know. Cheers, Christian IBM 9 rue de Verdun 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE Tel./Fax: +33 1 49 08 29 81 From: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu> To: team-rif-chairs@w3.org Cc: cawelty@gmail.com, Christian De Sainte Marie/France/IBM@IBMFR, sandro@w3.org, Ankesh <ankesh@cs.rpi.edu>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de Date: 05/07/2012 21:22 Subject: Apparent inconsistency regarding equality in RIF-PRD RIF Chairs, In short, if a=b and b=c, then intuitively, it should hold that a=c, but the operational semantics do not seem to ensure such. By definition of atomic formula (section 2.1.2) and informal definition of fact (section 2.2.2), a set of facts may include ground, equality, atomic formulas. Consider then the following set of facts where t_1, t_2, and t_3 are different ground terms: \Phi = {t_1=t_2, t_2=t_3}. By (operational) definition of state of the fact base (section 2.2.2), \Phi represents a state of the fact base. According to the interpretation of condition formulas (section 12.2), I_{truth}(I(x=y)) iff I(x)=I(y). Intuitively, then, it should hold that since t_1=t_2 \in \Phi implies I(t_1)=I(t_2), and since t_2=t_3 \in \Phi implies I(t_2)=I(t_3), by transitivity of mathematical equality, I(t_1)=I(t_3). However, there exists no ground substitution that matches t_1=t_3 to \Phi, and since ground, equality, atomic formulas cannot be inferred by rules (they are not syntactically allowed as the target of an assert action; see definition of atomic action, section 3.1.1), then there is also no subsequent state in which there exists a ground substitution that matches t_1=t_3 to the state's associated set of facts. This seems like an inconsistency. A similar argument can be made for the simpler (but perhaps less interesting and less obvious) case of when \Phi = {t_1=t_2}, where t_1 and t_2 are different ground terms. Then no ground substitution exists that matches t_2=t_1 to \Phi or to any subsequently inferred sets of facts. I can think of a number of ways to resolve this apparent inconsistency, but I wish to know: have I correctly determined an inconsistency, and if so, what were the intended (consistent) semantics (or definitions)? Jesse Weaver Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/index.xhtml Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above: Compagnie IBM France Siège Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex RCS Nanterre 552 118 465 Forme Sociale : S.A.S. Capital Social : 645.605.931,30 ? SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644 - Code NAF 6202A Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above: Compagnie IBM France Siège Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex RCS Nanterre 552 118 465 Forme Sociale : S.A.S. Capital Social : 645.605.931,30 ? SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644 - Code NAF 6202AReceived on Friday, 6 July 2012 15:12:05 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Friday, 6 July 2012 15:12:06 GMT
*