Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1 
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 04:00:10 -0400

> 
> 
> > > Even though this might seem unnecessary in
> > > the unitary world, this same rule set will have to live in a Phase 2
> > > world with other semantics, so it must be prepared to declare its
> > > characteristics in that larger context.
> > 
> > Well, this assumes, for starters, that there will be other, divergent,
> > semantics in Phase 2.  I do not conceed this point.  However, even if this
> > were the case, how do divergent semantics in Phase 2 require divergent
> > semantics in Phase 1?
> 
> I didn't say that Phase 1 will necessarily have multiple semantics.
> I said that Phase 1 must already have a plan for Phase 2.

I don't see how this follows.  Yes, Phase 1 should be performed in a way
that should not make Phase 2 too much harder, but this is certainly much
less than a full plan for Phase 2.

> But if we include constraints in Phase 1 then we might need to deal with
> multiple semantics already in Phase 1. (As we discussed, the semantics of
> constraints is not first-order.)

Yes, in some sense.

> 	--michael 

peter

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 07:14:44 UTC