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

Re: [Core] new definition of safeness

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 07:43:27 -0400
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23362.1241437407@ubehebe>

> 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.

      -- Sandro
Received 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