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

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 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.

Actually, the definition speaks about "for every occurrence of any
external term", which includes external terms nested in other external


>> 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

+43 1 58801 18470

Jos de Bruijn,
Many would be cowards if they had courage
  - Thomas Fuller

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 15:00:30 UTC