- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:49:07 +0200
- To: pfps@inf.unibz.it
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rif-wg-request@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. Yes, there are, but when respecting [[ whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something about a certain thing, we have to use, in this sentence, not the thing itself but its name or designation -- Alfred Tarski ]] the pitfalls can be overcome I believe. It not complete but I'm trying to apply this at http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2006/02swap/ and I think it works across JSON, Prolog and N3. >> 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. Right. >peter -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:49:32 UTC