Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

I agree that there are many ways to approach semantics.  While I'm not 
sure I would characterize model-theoretic semantics as more or less 
abstract than other approaches, I do fear that a model-theoretic 
semantics will be of little help
to the implementors of RIF translators and associated rule engines.  
Looking at other W3C formal semantic specifications for guidance, I find 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics/ to be a good approach.  Formal 
XQuery semantics are specified using RULES.  Why can't we specify RIF 
semantics using rules?  We could even write those rules using RIF.


Francois Bry wrote:

>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>  
>
>>From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
>>Subject: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"
>>Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:13:18 +0200
>>
>>  
>>    
>>
>>>Dear All,
>>>
>>>Thinking over the weekend of the "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics" issue
>>>which arises again and again, I would like to submit a few simple views:
>>>
>>>1. The RIF needs a specification of its meaning, e.g. how conjunctions
>>>are expressed in RIF. No interchange language can be usfeull if its
>>>meaning is not specified in some way.
>>>
>>>2. This "specification of meaning" can be very abstract (= high level),
>>>and possibly will have to be so.
>>>    
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't understand what it means for a "specification of meaning" to be
>>very abstract.  Perhaps you could give examples of such specifications.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>  
>>    
>>
>What I mean is that one does not necessarily wants to specify a model
>theory or a proof clculus for a logic. Specifying the logical
>connectives in an unambigous manner is already a semantics, a more
>abstract one than a model theory. 
>François
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 21:14:37 UTC