From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:50:30 -0400

Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0906180950s6e7b1195w5d7796ce058de9ae@mail.gmail.com>

To: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>

Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:50:30 -0400

Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0906180950s6e7b1195w5d7796ce058de9ae@mail.gmail.com>

To: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>

Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Below are a few minor comments on the definition, Stella ------------------------------------------------------- The definition of safeness of a variable in a condition formula doesn't cover the case where the condition formula is an existential formula. Definition (Boundedness): 1st sentence: "external term" --> "external function term", since earlier in Core (2.3) external term is defined to mean external function or predicate. 2nd sentence: if *an* only if --> if and only if Last para: what is the significance of "...that is, even if F is a disjunction" at the end? Definition (Safeness): 3rd para: (groups) if *an* only if --> if and only if 4th para: (documents) if and only if *it* -> if and only if On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>wrote: > > Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote on 17/06/2009 15:34:53: > > > > fair enough, if no one else has a problem with that I am ok to back off > > with that concern, since, admittedly, I find your definition easier to > > grasp in general. As far as I can see so far, (i) it does the job and > > (ii) it also seems independent from the definition of strong safeness > > (those are my two main concerns, did you check that as well Christian?, > > Jos?), so it seems replaceable. > > > Re strong safeness: I checked, and the only dependency is that the > definition of the dependency graph mentions "...any A in B_psi..." once. > > I see two possible fixes: > - one is to add the definition of B_psi from Jos's definition in the > section on strong safeness. That would require some editing, because Axel > uses the same symbols, E and L, as Jos for edges and labels, but for a > different graph; but Jos's E and L could simply be renamed E_psi and L_psi; > - the alternative is to define B_psi, in the definition of strong safeness, > as the set of the sets of the atomic formulas that are conjuncts in each > disjunct in psi in DNF (that sentence needs improving, of course, but it is > quite late, here, and tomorrow is the deadline for my tax form and I have > not started looking at it yet :-( > > I suggest that we use the latter fix, if somebody can come up with sensible > wording for it. > > All the Core editors agreed on switching to the bottom-up definition: if > there is no objection until tomorrow EOB, I will implement the change on > Friday morning my time. If somebody comes up with a reasonably clear > sentence to define B_psi wrt the sets of conjuncts in a DNF, I will add it > in the definition of strong safeness; if not, I will copy, and edit as > appropriate, the tree decomposition from the current definition of safeness. > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > 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 > >Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 16:51:08 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:56 UTC
*