- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:33:09 -0500
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Yes, the syntactic part of the proposal is fine, but the semantic is incomplete and unnecessarily complex. I quickly put together an alternative at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor-alt The syntax part is the same there, but the semantics is different (simplified and does not have undefined parts). --michael Jos wrote: > > Harold, > > I had a closer look at your proposal for the semantics of lists in RIF > [1]. I have a few comments: > > The symbol nil is not defined. It should probably be something like > "the domain of every RIF structure I contains an object nil". > > The function pair is not defined. It should probably be something like > "every RIF structure contains a function pair: D x Dl -> Dl, where Dl is > a subset of D comprising the object nil and the range of pair". > > Apart from these two things, the proposal looks fine. > > Best, Jos > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor > -- > Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it > +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 19:33:48 UTC