- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:38:54 +0000
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
- Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:29 AM, Michael Kifer wrote: [snip] > It is not easy to "see" something like that. One needs to check, > which is > very time consuming. My crystal ball says that the chances of > breakage are > over 50%. As another data point, Christian, I did think about this a couple of times, and I ran through two or three ways (including yours and a "parameterizable" model theory) to the point of starting email because I thought I had a simple, obviously workable compromise. They broke hard almost as soon as I started writing them out. What's wrong, from your perspective, in saying that the default semantics are (a), but implementations might not conform to the semantics for formulae with built-ins when there is an error? Implementations should document whether they conform and this is a place where RIF may not be perfectly faithful *by default*. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 00:39:06 UTC