Re: Proposed Errata 16 (RIF-PRD)

Hi Christian.

Please accept my apology for overlooking your email.  I would have  
replied much sooner.

There still seems to be a problem with the use of equality atoms.  I  
sent an email about this problem to the public-rif-comments list on  
September 6, 2012 (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2012Sep/0000.html 
  ), but I have not received a response to it.  Please see that email  
since, having looked at the errata (specifically http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Errata 
  ) just recently, it seems to have gone unaddressed.

By the way, I am at ISWC this week if anyone from the working group  
(who is also at ISWC) would like to discuss this face-to-face.

Jesse Weaver
Ph.D. Candidate, Patroon Fellow
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/index.xhtml

On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:

> Hi Jesse,
>
> Yes, I had noticed the inconsistency myself, and I corrected it in a  
> subsequent version of the errata (see erratum 16.2 [1]).
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Errata#Erratum_16.2
>
> I think that all the reported errors have been corrected, now, and  
> the are ready to publish the second edition.
>
> Would you be so kind and check all the errata again, and tell me if  
> you find something?
>
> Thanx for your help,
>
> 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:        public-rif-comments@w3.org
> Date:        14/08/2012 20:17
> Subject:        Proposed Errata 16 (RIF-PRD)
>
>
>
> Hi Christian.
>
> I was looking over the proposed errata for RIF ( http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Errata 
>  ), and I am quite happy with the proposed solution to errata 16.  I  
> think, though, that there is a problem.  The proposed operational  
> semantics for equality is stricter than the model-theoretic  
> semantics of equality.  For example, as I understand it, _a=_b  
> cannot be matched under the operational semantics, but it could be  
> true under the model-theoretic semantics as long at I(_a)=I(_b),  
> unless of course there is a unique name assumption.  I'm not sure of  
> a good way to reconcile the two semantics, but perhaps at least a  
> note should be made about the inconsistency if the proposed change  
> to the operational semantics is made.
>
> Another possible solution would be to allow matching equality  
> formulas to sets of facts, but then there is the problem of  
> redefining State of the Fact Base to ensure symmetry and  
> transitivity of equality facts.  It is more complicated, but it is  
> consistent with the model-theoretic semantics.
>
> Personally, I like the simplicity of the proposed solution in the  
> errata, but I just wanted to point out this potential  
> inconsistency.  Thanks for addressing previously reported issues in  
> the errata.
>
> 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 : 653.242.306,20 €
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644 - Code NAF 6202A