- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:50:17 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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. Dave -- 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