[RIF] [UCR]: On the Notion of a "Rule Language"

 
My defintion of a "rule language" in the UC&R draft basically required
1) a formal grammar, and 2) a derivation procedure


Peter on the notion of a rule language:

> My view is that a rule language is no different from any other formal
> representation language.  (An opposing view would be that a rule
language must
> have as well a fully-worked-out procedural meaning.)  

Bijan amplified on this point saying

> The only other things he (Peter) mentioned were having a formal
syntax and  
> semantics. I believe Peter things these are sufficient for well  
> specifying the RIF.

Question:  On Peter's view what makes something a RULE language as
opposed to some other kind of formal language? 

In my view it is part of the notion of a RULE language that it have
something to do with inferencing, i.e., a mechanism for sanctioning or
permitting the inferring of conclusions based upon given premises.
Whether this mechanism is understood to be encoded in the syntax,
semantics,  or whatever of the language is besides the point.  If a
language is not intended to support the drawing of inferences then it
is not a rule language.

Question:

Suppose I defined a RULE SYSTEM as a consisting of 1) a formal grammar
and 2) a derivation procedure defined over the wffs of the language.
Would you then say that the RIF is or is not a rule system?

Allen

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 16:07:09 UTC