- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:51:49 +0200
- To: gary.hallmark@oracle.com
- Cc: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
>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. I like that idea very much! Looking for instance at pieces of http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ one sees a recurring pattern of Rule name | If E contains | then add (and that is also how we implemented it). >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 >> -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 21:52:09 UTC