W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: evaluable predicates, general definition

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:24:43 -0500
To: axel@polleres.net
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2248.1194629083@cs.sunysb.edu>


> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >> ???? I think we simply don't disagree. So, about exactly what are we 
> >> arguing here? :-)
> >>
> >> Axel
> > 
> > Not sure :-)
> > 
> > (I was not asking for a definition of builtin predicates. I think I did not.)
> 
> ok, but it seems we do agree that the definition of binding patterns 
> might ins some form be useful/necessary to make builtins usable, yes?

Yes. Binding patterns should be in the spec of those builtins (but not in
the model theory).


	--michael  


> cheers,
> Axel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 17:25:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:43 GMT