- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 11:14:14 +0200
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> > Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics" > Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:18:54 +0200 > > >> Gary Hallmark wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> Look, I do not want to start a religious war about "abstract semantics". >> All what I mean is the following: >> >> If S1 is a semantics specifying more aspects of a language than a >> semantics S2 for this language, then S1 is more abstract than S2. >> > > How is S1 more "abstract"? Isn't it just "incomplete", or "vague", or > "unfinished"? > What i mentioned is the definition I know for "abstract". > >> This is the standard meaning of "abstract" in Computer Science. >> > > Not in my view, at least not without a whole lot of other caveats. > Please, give a definiton of "abstract" covering the usages of this word in many fileds such as programming and modseling languages, knowledge rep[esentation, and also logic... >> Another point: A Tarskian model theory is also specified using rules... >> > > I don't think that looking at Tarskian model theory as a set of rules is an > interesting approach. > Well, it is defined in terms of a function on formulas assigning to each (sub)formula a truth value. Pointing to the fact that this is very close to a rule notion, is, in our context, surely interesting. François PS: It has often turned out quite unfortunate to say, in Sciences, "this is not an interesting approach. ;-)
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 09:17:26 UTC