- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:03:01 -0500
- To: Adrian GIURCA <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Dear Michael, > > Michael Kifer wrote: > > Adrian, addressing just two of your comments. > > > > > >> I don't agree. If there are two different roles for the terms involved > >> in the equality then they are different. We need to distinguish between > >> the left part and the right part just if we consider to use the equality > >> in a non-commutative way (as an assignment, for example). > >> > > > > Let's not get carried away. We are talking logic, not Pascal. > > What assignment are you talking about in logic? > > > I guess I was not sufficient explicit. I don't understand why we have > two different roles namely lhs and rhs. This introduce distinctions of > the equality members such that if we want to express commutativity (the > logical case) we need a constraint in the model. We don't need any role > there. The "assignment" was probably a bad example. I understood your point. I was just commenting on the assignment thing. --michael
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 13:06:26 UTC