- From: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:09:45 +0200
- To: Leora Morgenstern <leora@us.ibm.com>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org, Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
- Message-ID: <447C6039.7090204@ifi.lmu.de>
Hi Leora, The requirement regarding FOL is under the open issues in the text at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements I agree that the current statement on FOL is not really clear, sorry about that, but I just copied and pasted this statement from Frank's first version on Design Constraints. I'll reformulate this in a second. As I said in the email, the text below the diagram is under development that is why one might get confused at this point. I will address the rest of your comments together with Frank when refining the text on RIF's DCs. Thank you for your comments! Regards, Paula > This comment refers both to your diagram as well as to the text > following the diagram in the url which you reference below. > > Whatever happened to first-order logic as a requirement? This was a > requirement that Sandro had originally proposed, and which I > championed. Instead, what I see is something considerably weaker: a > notion of "no surprises" which is said to be equivalent to some kind > of soundness, and a statement saying that "The RIF must support a > substantial portion of First-Order Logic." > > > Not only is this weaker, it doesn't seem very clear. What precisely is > this soundness to which you refer? How do you define soundness without > the notions inherent in first-order logic, namely truth within a model > and derivability? > > What precisely is a "substantial portion" of first-order logic? As it > stands, the phrase isn't well-defined. Could one have first-order > logic with everything but modus ponens? One could argue that that is a > "substantial portion" of first-order logic, but obviously that > wouldn't make sense. What do you plan to leave out of first-order > logic? And why? > > Can we put this back on the table, and get first-order logic into the > requirements? > > I hope we can discuss this at our meeting today. > > Best regards, > Leora Morgenstern > > > *Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>* > Sent by: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org > > 05/26/2006 07:47 AM > > > To > public-rif-wg@w3.org > cc > Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com> > Subject > [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > Frank and I have merged the requirements proposed in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0234.html > and the goals, CSFs, and requirements of the diagram proposed by Frank in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0188.html > > The updated version of the DC diagram can be found under > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements > > Note that the text on goals, CSFs, and requirements for RIF on the above > given page doesn't correspond yet to the current version of the DC > diagram; we are working on updating the text on the wiki page too. > > Please send comments on the current version of the DC diagram so as to > be able to finalize the work on RIF's design constraints as soon as > possible. > > Regards, > Paula > > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 16:04:15 UTC