- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:18:54 +0200 >From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> >Subject: Re: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics" >To: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org> [snip] >Another point: A Tarskian model theory is also specified using rules... Francois did not make this error but this comment is a good place to issue a caution. I strongly strongly strongly advise the WG to NOT get all excited by the idea of specifying RIF and RIF, or producing a rif.rif document, or any sort of funky circular bootstrapping. Saying "oh we can specify foo with RULES and rif is about RULES so we can specify RIF in RIF" is a very unfortunate and oftime dangerous thought, and almost invariable bad for the specification, however cute and fun it may be. (There are obvious exceptions, but I think being very cautious about such moves is wise.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 10:20:07 UTC