- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 13:26:47 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:17:44 +0100 Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > Michael, > > Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > Anyway, we have several possible routes to go with an option-3-like solution: > > > > 3a. Remove all the well-formedness requirements. The same symbol can have > > several arities, can be a pred, func, and an individual in different > > contexts. > > 3b. To keep the separation between preds, funcs, and individuals, but pred, > > func, external symbols can have multiple arities. > > > > 3c. To keep things as before, but for external symbols to allow multiple arities > > (and maybe even allow them to be funcs and preds in different contexts). > > > To clarify the difference between your options 3b and 3c: in 3b, you mean > that "all pred and func symbols, whether external or not, can have multiple > arities"; whereas 3c is that "all external symbols, whether pred or func, can > have multiple arities (but only external symbols)". Right? Right. 3c is the closest to what we have now and 3a is the farthest. But 3a is the simplest in terms of wording and ease of understanding. michael > > Christian > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 18:27:33 UTC