Re: [Core][PRD] Definition of safeness

Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Hi Axel,
> 
> Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote on 16/06/2009 15:39:41:
>  >
>  > blowup for naive normal form DNF transformation is potentially
>  > exponential in the formula size... which makes me a bit nerveous, if the
>  > definition contains such a potentially expensive operation. Thus...
> 
> Hmmm... But why would the rule be actually put in DNF?
> 
> We consider only DNF condition formula, because it makes the definition 
> concise and easy to understand, and because we know that any condition 
> formula can be put in DNF, in principle.
> 
> But this is about defining the concept; it is not about specifying how 
> to implement it efficiently.

fair enough, if no one else has a problem with that I am ok to back off 
with that concern, since, admittedly, I find your definition easier to 
grasp in general. As far as I can see so far, (i) it does the job and 
(ii) it also seems independent from the definition of strong safeness 
(those are my two main concerns, did you check that as well Christian?, 
Jos?), so it seems replaceable. I can only have a more detailed look mid 
of next week, I am afraid


Axel

> Christian
> 
> ILOG, an IBM Company
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
> Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
> 
> 
> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
> Compagnie IBM France
> Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
> Courbevoie
> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
> Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 €
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:35:31 UTC