- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:00:44 -0500
- To: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: 'Michael Kifer' <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 23:26 +0200, Gerd Wagner wrote: > > In fact, every use of default negation *always* had a clear > > scope and I am not aware of anyone who (thoughtfully) advocated > > default negation and imagined otherwise. > > I guess Dan and others are concerned about making the > scope explicit in the object language. Yes, quite. > This is indeed > an option that is not supported by traditional formal > LP languages (although it is supported by Prolog's > metaprogramming capabilities). But you (Michael) say > that FLORA-2 supports making the scope explicit, right? > Maybe you can give us an example how this looks like > in FLORA-2 and what it means in the underlying formal > semantics? Yes, please. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 22:00:51 UTC