RE: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more)

> 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".

What about common logic?

My concern is what having such an account, i.e., essentially
incorporating the well-founded semantics as part of the core, would
mean to someone implementing a "classical" language (having only two
truth values) which is intended to be in compliance with the core or
with a FOL dialect of the core?  I am pretty sure you (and Michael)
will say there is nothing to worry about, and I don't have any
technical counterexamples in mind, so it probably just boils down to a
difference in perspective.

Allen



-----Original Message-----
From: Gerd Wagner [mailto:wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:43 AM
To: Ginsberg, Allen; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more) 

> > 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.

Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 15:40:50 UTC