- From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:50:07 -0500
- To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Could I ask that we try to > make time to cover this issue during that session? I learned that Axel is of the same opinion (and he is in almost the same time zone). I'm strongly supporting this as well. Christian, could you still -- before you leave to Portland -- edit http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F12 Also, on Day 2, 17:00-18:00 - ... at the latest, we might want to discuss about the future "reduced workload WG": http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0103.html Please let us know when you are done so we can all print the revised agenda and (brief?) reading list before we leave. Is there a restaurant (in one of the hotels?) near Oracle where we can all meet up tomorrow night? Harold -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds Sent: January 12, 2009 7:28 AM To: RIF WG Subject: F2F12: Core safety criterion One of the outstanding issues that we didn't manage to resolve in time for the last publication of Core was the safety criteria. Amongst the Core editors, at least, there is not yet consensus on whether the safety criteria should be strong guarantees of finiteness or simply sufficient to make a forward chaining inference strategy viable. A test case is whether the following Core rule set is safe. ex:A(0) ex:A(?x) :- ex:A(?y), ?x = ?y + 1, ?x < 10 Clearly we can't solve the halting problem, any safety criteria which guarantees finiteness will be over conservative for some usages. I can't see a separate explicit issue on this but it is implicitly included in the second bullet point of Issue-82. I'd like to see this topic included in the F2F12 agenda. I see we have two possibly relevant sessions on the morning of the second day and I'm hoping to be able to dial in for both of those. Since the first covers Issue-82 that might be the most relevant. Could I ask that we try to make time to cover this issue during that session? Thanks, Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 15:50:51 UTC