Re: AW: [PRD] Safeness definition in flux again... (further notice)

********* NOTICE **********
My new email address at IBM is: csma@fr.ibm.com
My ILOG email address will not be forwarded after June 8
*****************************

Adrian,

I spent some time trying to understand the defintion in Core. I think that 
I have, now, about grasped it.

I completely agree that we should strive to make the definitions as close 
as possible. I think that I see, now, how to modify my proposal in that 
direction.

I am now reviewing Gary's proposal (btw, I also asked Jos if he could 
review it): I need to understand it first. Hopefully, it should be quick 
now that I understand the Core definition (or so I hope :-)

Cheers,

Christian

ILOG, an IBM Company
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10




From:
"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
To:
"'Gary Hallmark'" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, Christian De Sainte 
Marie/France/Contr/IBM@IBMFR
Cc:
"'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Date:
08/06/2009 18:09
Subject:
AW: [PRD] Safeness definition in flux again... (further notice)



I agree - we should stay close to the Core safeness definition and 
semantics so that we have a coherent link between the two dialects PRD and 
Core.
I could not find the extended safeness definition from Core in the PRD 
working draft? 

-Adrian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im 
Auftrag von Gary Hallmark
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2009 07:53
An: Christian De Sainte Marie
Cc: RIF
Betreff: Re: [PRD] Safeness definition in flux again... (further notice)

As I said in an early email, I think we should start with the Safeness 
definition in Core and extend to PRD. I have done just that:

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD_Safeness

Someone who understands Jos' formulation and how to extend it to add 
negation should review (preferably, Jos himself)

Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> ********* NOTICE **********
> My new email address at IBM is: csma@fr.ibm.com
> My ILOG email address will not be forwarded after June 8
> *****************************
>
> Christian De Sainte Marie/France/Contr/IBM wrote on 02/06/2009 21:23:48:
> >
> > Trying more examples, I found out that my simplification of the
> > definitions of UBV and CBV had been a bit too drastic, and that I
> > droped into unsafeness a case where there was still some hope :-(
>
> One should never jump too fast to conclusions, esp. after 9pm and a 
> long day's work: that's not my definition that was wrong, it's my 
> analysis of the example.
>
> I edited out my started attempt at correcting a non-existent bug, and 
> the spec if open again to review (I did not rollback, because Harold 
> and Chris seem to be editing the doc)..
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
> ILOG, an IBM Company
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
> Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
>
>
> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
> Compagnie IBM France
> Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
> Courbevoie
> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
> Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
>





Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430