- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:42:56 +0100
- To: "'Ginsberg, Allen'" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > As far as I understand it, stable model "semantics" is basically a > > procedural add-on to classical semantics involving an implementation > > of the closed-world-assumption. This is not quite true. It's better viewed as defining a preference criterion for selecting the indended models of a rule set (as Michael has already stressed) and as a "refinement" of the (very intuitive) minimal model semantics. > But from what > I have read (including the Fitting survey you referenced) it does seem > to be a way of formalizing the closed-world-assumption, and that > assumption is not consistent with classical semantics, i.e., logic. Not being "consistent with classical semantics" doesn't mean much for what we are trying to do. No important computational formalism I'm aware of is "consistent with classical semantics". -Gerd
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 14:43:19 UTC