Response to DM3
Thank you very much for your comments. Please see our comments within.
> I am trying to understand the section 3.8 on intended semantic structures. > I am not a deep expert in logic, so what may be obvious and implied to > experts is alas not obvious to me. (My goal is to develop a dialect > handling Naf amongst other things). > > I have two comments/questions... > > 1) Looking at the section 3.8 , I see the term "intended semantic > multi-structure". It is said that RIF-BLD does not specify what these > might be, and I am fine with that. However this section does not even > define (explicitly) what the "purpose" of such structures might be, nor > any criteria for knowing that you have selected the right set for a given > purpose. (Could the set be entirely random, I ask myself?)
We have added more explanations in that section, which should hopefully make the intent clear. The intended structures are by no means random. They should be defined by a trained logician who is familiar with the mode-theoretic semantics of rules.
> Therefore I > look to the Shoham87 reference, and I read about "preferred" > interpretations. This gives a clear "purpose" to the relationship between > alternative interpretations, and I guess that this is what is meant by > intended semantic multistructure. > > So is it correct to say that intended semantic multistructure == > preferred interpretation? If so, could that be made explicit? If not, then > what is the "purpose"?
Yes, "intended" subsumes "preferred" in Shoham's terminology. Please see if the reworked explanations make the purpose any clearer.
> 2) In the section 3.9 a definition for entailment is given, based upon the > lattice of truth values. However in the reference (again Shoham87) there > is no mention (as far as my non-expert eyes can see) of lattices of truth > values, only preference relations between interpretations. So I am not > sure what the intended RIF-FLD relationship is between these two concepts.
This is a generalization of Shoham's notion to the case of multi-valued logics. Shoham considers only two-valued logics. Our notion reduces to Shohams for 2-valued dialects.
> Apologies if these are obvious. > > regards > > > David Mott, PhD, C. Eng.