- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:46:57 -0700
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- CC: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
+1 Chris Welty wrote: > > 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 >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 04:47:45 UTC