W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [Core] new safeness condition

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:32:11 +0000
Message-ID: <497DE58B.3040904@deri.org>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> And the accompanying test cases (completing action 688):
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_Safeness_2
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core_NonSafeness
> 
> 
> 
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> I completed ACTION-687: Write a proposed new definition of the safeness
>> restriction
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness
>>
>> Please criticize.

First: after a busy January, I am back to normal again and should have 
significantly more time to contribute to rif again.

>> I suspect it can be a little more concisely.  When I find some time I
>> will go over it again.

Looks sound, but implies that finiteness is no longer is requested.
Was that what was agreed? (Am just catching up with reading minutes)

>> I also invite anyone who is interested to go over the functions and
>> predicates in DTB and check whether the binding patterns defined are
>> appropriate.

will do, but, the one you have no is on the safe side anyway,
you mean, we should check wehether there are some where more liberal 
binding patterns could be allowed?


Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 16:33:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT