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

nobody suggested to incorporate non-classical semantics into the core.


> > 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 15:52:18 UTC