Re: soundness and semantics

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> François Bry wrote:
>
>   
>> It seems to me that behind the "soundness" discussions, the "semantics"
>> issue is re-emerging.  My understandsing is as follows:
>>
>> 1. Interchange of rules and rule sets originally specified after
>> different semantics is needed. Therefore, the possibility of RIF rules
>> and rule sets with different semantics should be a requirement.
>>
>> 2. Such an interchange is only possible if the original semantics of the
>> rules and rule sets to be interchanged is specified. Therefore, the
>> possibility to specify a semantics for a rule or rule set should be a
>> requirement.
>>     
>
> Although there has been email discussion subsequent to this, I think
> the above text nicely states minimal RIF features required in
> order to support interoperability and rule type/language scope 
> (coverage) goals that we currently have for RIF.  These requirements
> seem obvious to many, but can we please explicitly take a decision on
> this and record it.  It is not necessary to refine what we mean by
> "more than one semantics" (2, 3, or greater than 5) at this point.
> Nor do we have to say *how* these semantics can be discriminated in a
> set of RIF syntax, just that there must be some way to do so.  These
> other issues are refinements that will come later.  Let's nail down 
> what we can now, to avoid revisiting this over and over again.
>   
+1

@Christian and Chris: perhaps you can schedule at least one session at 
the F2F3 for discussing requirements and take decisions on them for the 
next Working Draft.
> In Franks diagram, 1 could be a refinement of Formal Semantics supporting
> the Coverage Critical Success Factor.  2 is already in his diagram
> as Markup of Semantics.
>   
Right, but being a diagram containing more titles of requirements than 
their descriptions, the requirements are not really clear and precisely 
stated. However, I'm working at refining the list of requirements for 
the F2F3 and will take the result of this discussion also into account.

Regards,
Paula