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.
Last modified on 11 November 2009, at 00:51