- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 16:21:44 +0200
- To: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Chris Welty wrote: > > Ahem, well, disjunction and conjunction you may be able to get away > with, but I suspect negation and implication, quantification, and > variables, predication, and so forth will not be particularly well > served by such an approach. > > I am not speaking in favour of the approach. I am saying it is a way to specify a semantics. If you add a little bit of proof calculus, you soon get a constructive logic (without model theory like most constructive logics). My point is that an interchange language must have a semantics, even a very abstract (in the sense of very weakly commiting) one otherwise it cannot be used for intewrchange. Francois
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 14:21:50 UTC