- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 18:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: jos.deroo@agfa.com Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics" Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:51:49 +0200 > > >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? How would that be different from a proof theory? > We could even write those rules using RIF. > I like that idea very much! You mean using rules that we haven't given meaning to to give meaning to the rules? I suspect that there are some potential pitfalls there. > 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). Well this is in the entailment rules sections, which are (only) informative. peter
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:12:09 UTC