Re: model theory of error

I do not know.


	--michael  


> Interesting. So: are there any existing model theories for error
> handling, or is this new research?
> 
> I couldn't find any good references... eg
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/q010206359p77327/ 
> 
> Paul Vincent
> TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
> > Sent: 10 January 2008 01:18
> > To: Christian de Sainte Marie
> > Cc: RIF WG
> > Subject: Re: model theory of error
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Kifer wrote:
> > >
> > > > How do you define an error independently of the evaluation
> strategy?
> > > > What does it mean to say that "RIF does not mandate any
> > > > specific behaviour"? What is "behavior" exactly, if RIF (at least
> BLD)
> > does
> > > > not define any evaluation strategy?
> > >
> > > Let me try without using the words "error" or "behaviour"...
> > >
> > > An evaluated function is defined over a domain, and it is undefined
> > > outside of that domain.
> > >
> > > If a function is used in a rule, we assume that any party that
> evaluates
> > > that rule knows the domain of the function, whether it is specified
> > > within RIF (builtin function) or not (application-specific).
> > >
> > > So, anybody who may have to evaluate the function knows where it is
> > > defined and where it is not, and is able to check, before evaluating
> it,
> > > whether the arguments are in the domain, and the function defined,
> or
> > not.
> > >
> > > For the strict purpose of rule interchange, RIF needs to make sure
> that
> > > all users have the same understanding of the rule - that is, draw
> the
> > > same inferences - where the function is defined.
> > >
> > > But does RIF need to guarantee anything beyond the common
> understanding
> > > that the function is undefined, where it is undefined? Except,
> maybe,
> > > that such cases must not be handled silently.
> > >
> > > The same question applies wrt evaluated predicates.
> > >
> > > Is that any clearer? And, if yes, does it make sense? And, if no, at
> > > what step did I take the wrong turn?
> > 
> > 
> > It is clear like mud. You still fail to understand that we are
> supposed to
> > give formal semantics: model-theoretic, denotational, operational in
> that
> > order. We decided that for BLD we will give a model-theoretic
> semantics.
> > If
> > you want to redefine the mission - fine.  But make sure you ask for
> > another
> > 12 months of extension.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	--michael
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Christian
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 14:35:13 UTC