> I also finished the definition of strong safeness: > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Strong_Safeness > > please have a look. > ...and membership formulas a#b and ternary, respectively binary > predicate symbols, and so (->,3),(#,2) ... I think you mean: ...and membership formulas a#b, respectively, as ternary and binary predicate symbols (->,3) and (#2) ... That was about as far as I got. Well, actually, I got as far as "(?V,?V') ∈ E and {f1, ..., fn} ∈ L'((?V,?V'))" before I gave up. Personally, I'd prefer pseudocode, but if others in the group can actually read this definition and be confident it's correct, then I can live with that. Also, as I understand http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16#resolution_2 this shouldn't be at risk, and should be labeled as "informative" (or "non-normative"), although I guess that ACTION-749 was on Axel. -- SandroReceived on Monday, 4 May 2009 11:43:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT