Re: [Core][PRD] Definition of safeness

All,

Are there any lingering concerns over the new definition of safeness?  Can we 
adopt this for Core & PRD?  We are already over a week late to publish.

-Chris

Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty