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

Re: [Core] new safeness condition

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:54:57 +0100
Message-ID: <497DEAE1.2000605@inf.unibz.it>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Axel Polleres wrote:
> 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 could not read the old definition.
I wrote a definition that makes sense to me. I have also heard people
arguing against the finiteness requirements, but nobody in favor.

Of course, my proposal is upon to criticism.

>>> 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


Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
Many would be cowards if they had courage
  - Thomas Fuller
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 16:55:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC