Re: Start discussion

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <> wrote:
> On 3/21/2010 8:26 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>> Hi Everybody,
>> There has been no discussion at all on the list, and that honestly
>> worries me.
> I share this concern, which is one reason that I decided to join the group
> and try to add what I can.
>> I know that we need to have a Use Case documents, but it is not
>> completely clear to me what else we need to turn in and by when.
>> One issue that I personally feel than needs to be settled is the
>> semantics of the language. One we have this defined, it is just a matter
>> of deciding on what is the syntax. I don't think we have made much
>> progress on this issue. I have proposed to develop the semantics of the
>> mapping language in datalog. I'd be up for working on this in
>> conjunction with Marcelo Arenas and Dan Miranker.
> Ideally, I'd hope that the semantics of the language follow from the
> requirements which follow from the use cases.
> As far as datalog, I know next to nothing about it, so my questions are
> probably naive. Is there a datalog standard that we will be able to
> normatively reference if the semantics of the language are given in datalog?

Yes, there is a standard semantics for datalog with safe negation
(which is the form of negation that we need here). We will probably
need to extend datalog with some built-in predicates (like bound), but
there is also a standard way to include this type of built-in
predicates in datalog.

All the best,


Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 08:29:28 UTC