- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:12:29 -0500
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
At 23:49 +0100 12/8/05, Enrico Franconi wrote: [snip] > >The behaviour of a reasoner has to be constrained by the semantics >of the language it processes, otherwise its behoaviour will be just >arbitrary: that's why we have semantics :-) well, that's true - but let's not forget there are a number of different kinds of semantics - I don't know of any programming language in major use that has anything other than operational semantics, and they seem to work pretty good (at least this email seems to be getting to you through a whole bunch of computers and routers and programs, and I suspect few if any have a model theory) -- this is not to advocate not doing a formal semantics, but just to remind people that an option is to do basically an operational semantics for the RIF in phase 1, and then nail down the details in phase 2 (While people are starting to implement the relatively stable stuff) -- this might be a way to get a lot more out the door sooner -- I wish I had considered that option when I was chairing the WebOnt group - I suspect we'd of gotten to CR sooner if we'd been able to move things this way (i.e. if we'd had the reference manual in LC or close thereto while we were finalizing the details of the semantics) -JH -- Professor James Hendler Director Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery 301-405-2696 UMIACS, Univ of Maryland 301-314-9734 (Fax) College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler (New course: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler/CMSC498w/)
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 02:13:15 UTC