- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:50:54 +0100
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: RIF WG Public list <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > > I do not object if you make it crispier. Also, my original comment was that we > need to actually make this common subset more explicit (no negation, assertions > only). Ok. Done. > Well, we can use something else instead of uninterpreted function symbols. The > problem is that while my formulation might only raise questions, your use of > "logical functions" is terminologically incorrect. These symbols are called > "non-logical (function) symbols" in logic! > > Instead of "uninterpreted ..." we could say simply "function symbols". > This is not quite crisp, since builtin functions are also symbols, but people > should understand. Ok. I used "uninterpreted function symbols". I think that only your comments 10, 12 and 13 remain unanswered now. They should be by tomorrow night, and you will be able to try and read the doc again :-) Thanx again for the thorough commenting. Cheers, Christian
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:51:46 UTC