- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:44:38 -0400
- To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > Drew McDermott wrote: > > > > One could develop a pretty formal account of how > > this thing worked, including an account of what inferences were > > licensed under what circumstances. But it would have nothing to do > > with the _semantics_, which could be specified in advance, > > independently of the details of the inferential mechanisms. > > I'll be interested to know if Michael thinks this is a defense of him :) I think that here by "semantics" Drew means Tarskian-like model theory -- definitions of what is and is not a model. By choosing a subset of "intended" models one can define entailment relations of various degrees of hairiness. This is a standard story of semantics for nonmon inference. I don't see what you think should upset me here. I may be misunderstanding either or both of you. :-) --michael
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 04:44:43 UTC