Re: [Core][PRD] Definition of safeness

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, ¶’ :- ¶◊, we define the collection, B¶◊, of the 
sets of the atomic formulas in each of the conjunctions that are the 
components of ¶◊', where ¶◊' is ¶◊ 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
Si®®ge Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La D®¶fense 5, 92400 
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 Ä
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430

Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 12:34:40 UTC