Re: a "modest proposal" for PRD

I suspect it is even more important to nail down the semantics of PRD 
because, at the moment, there is probably more commercial interest in 
interchange of production rules than basic logic rules.

Paul Vincent wrote:
> Isn't a formal PRD Operation Semantics a somewhat long-term (and academic - as no vendor could probably justify it alone) R&D project? In other words, interesting, but irrelevant to RIF & RIF members for the foreseeable future?
>
> Paul Vincent
> [Apologies: won't be joining you in Paris]
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Hassan Aït-Kaci
>> Sent: 20 February 2008 09:55
>> To: Gary Hallmark
>> Cc: W3C RIF WG
>> Subject: Re: a "modest proposal" for PRD
>>
>>
>> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>     
>>> Start with exactly the BLD syntax.  Add just 1 or 2 "hard" things (e.g.
>>> retraction and rule priority) that are common in PR and make a model
>>> theory very difficult.  Do not respecify the syntax, just add the new
>>> elements.  Develop an Operational Semantics for it, as defined by
>>> Plotkin in http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/gdp/publications/sos_jlap.pdf.
>>> Do not spend time on informal semantics that can only diverge from the
>>> formal semantics.  Only after PRD has caught up with BLD in terms of
>>> semantic rigor should it incorporate negation, aggregation, other
>>> actions, etc.
>>>
>>> The task of developing a formal Operational Semantics for PRD is not
>>> trivial and would be best attempted by someone who has done something
>>> similar before.
>>>       
>> Well said ... I fully agree.
>>
>> -hak
>> --
>> Hassan Aït-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
>> http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 


Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Gary Hallmark | Architect | +1.503.525.8043
Oracle Server Technologies
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800
Portland, OR 97204

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 20:25:44 UTC