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

Re: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon March 10 [*ATTENTION* time of telecon]

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:22:50 +0000
Message-ID: <49B6316A.3040402@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:

> 5. Safeness and termination (ACTION-702 [8]) [9] (5 mn)
> *PROPOSED:* The issue of finiteness will be At Risk through CR, as we 
> get implementor feedback. We need to know who wants / doesn't want this 
> limitation in Core. (Safeness as defined by Jos [8] not being in question.)

This does not seem to be a complete proposal.

What is the proposed definition of finiteness?  I see in [1] that Axel 
has sketched a definition of strong safety which guarantees finiteness 
but there are clearly rule sets with finite grounding which violate that 
definition.

Is the proposal:

(a) Core should adopt a conservative notion of strong safety such as Axel's

or is it:

(b) Core should define conformance only over rulesets with a finite 
grounding (without requiring syntactic checking of finiteness)

?

I understand that in either case the proposal is to mark this 
restriction At Risk.

I'm trying to understand the implications of this proposal for the 
conformance statements. What I'm trying to achieve is Core Document 
Conformance does not require static checking of termination but a Core 
Consumer is not required to behave well if supplied a Core ruleset which 
proves to be non-terminating.

Dave

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0065.html

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 09:29:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:03 GMT