Re: [TED] An alternative proposal for the technical design

> 
> All,
> 
> ([TED] stands for TEchnical Design)
> 
> I have hinted and ranted and hoped that somebody would come forward with 
> a counter-proposal to Harold's et al, and, indeed, some came. But none 
> of the kind that I hoped for. So, I took "mon courage a deux mains" and 
> my limited competence in the other, and I tried it myself...
> 
> You will find the result on the Wiki: 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Alternative_Extensible_Design
> 
> Do not hesitate to ask if something is not clear (or, should I say: do 
> not hesitate to ask? :-)

Christian:
>From your proposal:

    The parties in the interchange of a RIF document (that is, of rules
    serialized as a RIF document) are assumed to have agreed on the meaning of
    atomic expressions, that is, each party knows how to interpret them in
    their own rule language,

Is it a set of bilateral agreements or a semantics? If you really mean to
have a semantics then why don't you specify it and explain how exactly it
differs from the other proposals. Right now your proposed semantics is no more 
than handwaving.

     The meaning of a ruleset is that all the rules have to be evaluated one at
     a time in some order until none needs or can be evaluated anymore
     (typically, because their consequent is satisfied or their antecedent is
     not; but it could also be otherwise, depending on the application: in
     application 2 above, each rule needs be evaluated only once)

Is that your "semantics"?

     The rather vague "semantics" proposed above for rules and rulesets seems to
     be able, for instance, to preserve the meaning of a rule/ruleset across a
     large class of general logic programmes with a stable model semantics and a
     large class of rulesets with the usual operational semantics of production
     rule languages.

Stable model semantics, really? How?


	--michael

Received on Saturday, 28 October 2006 21:17:11 UTC