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

Re: [Core][PRD] Definition of safeness

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:58:05 +0200
To: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF1BCFD60B.97C538EC-ONC12575DA.0033F84F-C12575DA.003C3FE0@fr.ibm.com>
Hi Stella,

Thanx. I made the corrections. Additional comments in-lined below.

Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com> wrote on 18/06/2009 18:50:30:
>  
> The definition of safeness of a variable in a condition formula 
> doesn't cover the case where the condition formula is an existential 
formula.

You are right: the case was not in Jos's definition, because existential 
quantifiers were completely removed. But they were added back in the 
bottom-up definition, to ease the extension to PRD...

I added the clause that "v is safe in an existential formula, Exists 
v1...vn (f), iff it is safe in f."
 
>     Last para:
>         what is the significance of  "...that is, even if F is a 
> disjunction" at the end?

Nothing. I thought that I had removed it already :-( Now, it *is* removed, 
anyway.

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 Friday, 19 June 2009 10:58:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 June 2009 10:58:46 GMT