Re: sorts needed for extensibility? (Re: Action 299 - removing sorts)

> 
> [I think this is really about extensibility, not BLD, but I'm not sure.]
> 
> Much trimmed from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jul/0088.html
> 
> kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer) writes;
> > You need to show that your design is extensible. This implies the above
> > property. Basically, if you have a ruleset in a lower dialect, its XML
> > should be valid in higher dialect. Its logic (= syntax and semantics)
> > should also be valid in a higher dialect "as is" without any transformations.
> 
> When you say "extensibility", are you thinking of some kind of
> modularity to the semantics or the specification of the language?  While
> that would be elegant, I don't think that's necessary.

No, I explained precisely what that means: a formula in a lower dialect
should be syntactically correct in a higher dialect, and its implication
properties should be the same in some sense.

I do not know how to satisfy even the first part of that without signatures.


	--michael  


> For example, I think one could define a dialect which builds on BLD by
> adding something with purely operational semantics.  Or one could define
> a dialect introducing syntactic sugar, defined just by specifying a
> syntactic transformation to BLD.  These could be specified with no
> connection to how the BLD semantics are specified -- to whether there
> are sorts or not, etc.  Right?
> 
> The important thing is that wherever dialects overlap, they have the
> same semantics.  Beyond that -- like, how the semantics are specified --
> isn't a core issue.
> 
>         -- Sandro
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 12:03:50 UTC