Re: [Core] 1) editorial things in Core and 2) first draft of Eiter-Schindlauer safety.

Axel Polleres wrote:

> What about nested Externals?, I think the b-u replacement needs to be
> defined recursively to cater for those, yes? 

At the time Jos wrote his definition nested externals were syntactically 
excluded from Core.  Harold added them back in again at the syntactic 
level but we have no formal resolution either way on nested externals 
functions (including in the head as well as the body).

If we agree to keep nested externals then one approach would be to 
define a syntactic transform from Core to a minimal Core without nested 
externals (indeed could remove disjunction the same way) and define 
safety over the minimal Core.

Otherwise the safety definition would indeed need updating.

> Now for 2). 

Minor typo:

> <ul>
> <li> if H occurs in head of a rule r and H in the body of r then add 
> (H,B).</li>

The second H should be B, right?

> p.s.: small "process question" I am not sure whether I should not add the draft text for strongly safe rulesets at this point, since Core is frozen or are wiki changes allowed? 

I would go ahead and add it but Harold was going to hold a Core editor's 
meeting for those editors at the f2f so check with him.

Would also need to modify the conformance statement to require strongly 
safe rather than just safe rules and add the At Risk statement.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 07:51:14 UTC