W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > September 2006

Re: A bit on the formal semantics

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:03:08 +0100
Message-Id: <50FA8141-E695-4622-A67D-98B9FB70DCBD@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
To: Anne.Anderson@sun.com

On Sep 15, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Anne Anderson wrote:

> Just a caution on making formal semantics normative: The OASIS  
> XACML 2.0 specification used Haskell to specify the semantics of  
> our higher order functions.  When the specification was submitted  
> to the ITU for cross-standardization, there was no approved  
> standard for Haskell that we could reference.  In order to satisfy  
> ITU requirements, we had to make the Haskell description non- 
> normative and the English text description the normative version.

First, the WG voted against doing this so it's a bit moot.

Second, I would do it directly, in Englihs. Formal doesn't mean not  
in English :)

Third, if I were going to do it by reference to another computer  
language I would do it by translation to OWL. But I wouldn't (and  
didn't) propose this because I'm not sure future extensions could all  
be translated into OWL.

So, I don't think that would have been a problem :) If the informal  
English is good enough, then the formalizing English should be good  
enough.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 16:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT