- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:22:50 +0000
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > 5. Safeness and termination (ACTION-702 [8]) [9] (5 mn) > *PROPOSED:* The issue of finiteness will be At Risk through CR, as we > get implementor feedback. We need to know who wants / doesn't want this > limitation in Core. (Safeness as defined by Jos [8] not being in question.) This does not seem to be a complete proposal. What is the proposed definition of finiteness? I see in [1] that Axel has sketched a definition of strong safety which guarantees finiteness but there are clearly rule sets with finite grounding which violate that definition. Is the proposal: (a) Core should adopt a conservative notion of strong safety such as Axel's or is it: (b) Core should define conformance only over rulesets with a finite grounding (without requiring syntactic checking of finiteness) ? I understand that in either case the proposal is to mark this restriction At Risk. I'm trying to understand the implications of this proposal for the conformance statements. What I'm trying to achieve is Core Document Conformance does not require static checking of termination but a Core Consumer is not required to behave well if supplied a Core ruleset which proves to be non-terminating. Dave [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0065.html -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 09:29:04 UTC