Re: [BLD] comments on the semantics of lists

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/