- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:12:11 +0200
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary Hallmark wrote: > > Why don't we focus on the semantics that I propose, which complements > Adrian's changes to use a model theory for conditions? Basically, my > proposals involve changing the semantic structure according the action. > It seems like we need to nail this down before we talk about more > actions. Surely new, assert, and retract are a good starter set of > actions. I propose we stick with these and precisely define their > semantics for WD2. I agree on that. Only, I thought that this would be best discussed after the editorial work had been finalized, at least on a strawman basis. See my other email on that subject. > [...] > Will this let us make progress on WD2, only 3 weeks away? I think it > would be better to formalize the semantics and then ask folks to review > it in light of implementability of a translator to/from their system. I hope so. At least, this was the idea :-) I think that we agree that we must first converge on what semantics is useful (or even neededà and implementable for the actions. I also think that we have, now, the framework to specify that semantics in a clear, unambiguous and implementation independent way, and that, once we agree on what actions and what semantics, we can just add them in the document. The problem I see is that we do not seem to agree on the semantics of e.g. Assert; that we do not agree on whether or not we need a Modify; etc. I believe that we cannot progress any further before we reach an agreement on such basic questions. Cheers, Christian
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 08:13:12 UTC