All, csma wrote on 17/06/2009 23:24:07: > > [...[ I will implement the change on Friday morning my time. Done. > If somebody comes up > with a reasonably clear sentence to define B_psi wrt the sets of > conjuncts in a DNF, I will add it in the definition of strong > safeness; if not, I will copy, and edit as appropriate, the tree > decomposition from the current definition of safeness. I came up with the following sentence, and edited the section on strong safeness accordingly: For every rule implication, φ :- ψ, we define the collection, Bψ, of the sets of the atomic formulas in each of the conjunctions that are the components of ψ', where ψ' is ψ rewritten as a condition formula in disjunctive normal form, possibly existentially quantified itself, but otherwise containing no existential sub-formula (see description of the transform in the section Safeness, above). Feel free to improve the wording... Cheers, Christian 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
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 12:34:40 UTC