- From: Piero A. Bonatti <bonatti@na.infn.it>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:47:59 +0100
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 12:49, Francois Bry wrote: > 1. RIF's formal semantics might, and may be should, be more abstract > than those of existing processable rule languages. Eg making it possible > to express "negation as failure" without choosing between Stable Model > and Well-Founded semsntics. I believe this kind of tasks is more or less hopeless, and again it may introduce severe restrictions metadata tagging with the intended semantics would be a possible approach I think we have to live with the fact that specifying a "RIF processor" is a harder task than sp[ecifying even an XSLT processor. maybe a developer can't understand the specification for a full-fledged LP language with disjunction, strong negation, and negation as failure, but (s)he may probably understnad the specification for simpler fragments. in other words, a taxonomy of "rif processor specifications" may be a way out (if we really need some) p.
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 16:48:04 UTC