@@ -21,60 +21,60 @@ \section{TODO}
2121% %% \item section disjunctive modeling (do book)
2222% \item quoting of expressions/symbols (double quotes, punctuation)
2323\item homogeneous style for schematics in language section
24- \item the language section uses very often: `` gringo and the grounding component of clingo''
25- \item Vladimir's comments
26- \begin {itemize }
27- \item
28- The symbols \code {\# sup} and \code {\# inf} are new to me, is this a recent addition to the
29- language? Is it really true that \code {\# sup>f(\# sup)}, but \code {\# inf<f(\# inf)}?
30- The explanation of these symbols at the bottom of page 13 is cryptic, I’m
31- afraid, unless you say there that a total order on variable-free terms is
32- going to be inroduced later.
33- \comment {RK: I agree that it is not obvious to the reader why the two symbols are introduced their.
34- But we have a forward reference to the aggregate section where their use is described.}
35- \item
36- The discussion of terms in Sec. 3.1.1 gives the impression that Fig. 2 is a
37- complete description of the syntax of terms. It would be good to say here
38- that the definition of a term will be extended later, when arithmetic
39- operations and intervals are introduced. In fact, Fig. 2 defines something
40- close to what we call “precomputed” terms in the AG paper. It may be
41- worthwhile to include this (or similar) name for the class of terms covered
42- by Fig. 2, for the following reason. The total order that you talk about
43- in Sec. 3.1.7 is not defined actually on all variable-free terms; it is
44- defined on *precomputed* variable free terms. Once we decided whether f(a)
45- is greater than g(2), we are committed to the same choice regarding f(a)
46- and g(1+1), and regarding g(1..1), right?
47- \comment {RK: I disscussed this with Martin.
48- When variable-free terms are introduced, they contain neither arithmetics, pools, or intervals.
49- The order among variables is introduced along with comparison literals,
50- where we mention that terms are compared after evaluating arithmetic functions.
51- Our conclusion was to not introduce auxiliary notions to keep the guide simple.}
52- % \item
53- % Will the reader understand “cannot span positive cycles” and “induces no
54- % positive cycle” in Sec. 3.1.4? Unfortunately, I don't know what to
55- % suggest.
56- \end {itemize }
57- \item Christoph's comments
58- \begin {itemize }
59- \item
60- I have one comment regarding the future work section where it says that it
61- is considered to add "support for arbitrary positive loops" . Since the
62- second half of the sentence talks about redefining atoms in incremental
63- programs, I was wondering if these two features are meant to be used
64- together, i.e., redefining atoms in a cyclic fashion (which would
65- contradict the outcome of our discussion after Cristina's defense). If not,
66- then it should be clarified which kind of positive loops are meant here
67- since most positive loops are already supported (maybe over aggregates?).
68- \item
69- Another question concerns Section 3.1.11 (conditional literals), where I
70- was wondering how the rule would be instantiated if person(jane) and
71- person(john) were no fact but derivable atoms. Then meet would only depend
72- on the available atoms whose corresponding person atoms are currently true.
73- Maybe one should give another example which demonstrates this. (My idea
74- would be to use default-negation to derive an intermediate atom if there is
75- a person who is not available, and then use another default-negation to
76- check if this atom is not true.).
77- \end {itemize }
24+ % \item the language section uses very often: ``gringo and the grounding component of clingo''
25+ % \item Vladimir's comments
26+ % \begin{itemize}
27+ % \item
28+ % The symbols \code{\#sup} and \code{\#inf} are new to me, is this a recent addition to the
29+ % language? Is it really true that \code{\#sup>f(\#sup)}, but \code{\#inf<f(\#inf)}?
30+ % The explanation of these symbols at the bottom of page 13 is cryptic, I’m
31+ % afraid, unless you say there that a total order on variable-free terms is
32+ % going to be inroduced later.
33+ % \comment{RK: I agree that it is not obvious to the reader why the two symbols are introduced their.
34+ % But we have a forward reference to the aggregate section where their use is described.}
35+ % \item
36+ % The discussion of terms in Sec. 3.1.1 gives the impression that Fig. 2 is a
37+ % complete description of the syntax of terms. It would be good to say here
38+ % that the definition of a term will be extended later, when arithmetic
39+ % operations and intervals are introduced. In fact, Fig. 2 defines something
40+ % close to what we call “precomputed” terms in the AG paper. It may be
41+ % worthwhile to include this (or similar) name for the class of terms covered
42+ % by Fig. 2, for the following reason. The total order that you talk about
43+ % in Sec. 3.1.7 is not defined actually on all variable-free terms; it is
44+ % defined on *precomputed* variable free terms. Once we decided whether f(a)
45+ % is greater than g(2), we are committed to the same choice regarding f(a)
46+ % and g(1+1), and regarding g(1..1), right?
47+ % \comment{RK: I disscussed this with Martin.
48+ % When variable-free terms are introduced, they contain neither arithmetics, pools, or intervals.
49+ % The order among variables is introduced along with comparison literals,
50+ % where we mention that terms are compared after evaluating arithmetic functions.
51+ % Our conclusion was to not introduce auxiliary notions to keep the guide simple.}
52+ % % \item
53+ % % Will the reader understand “cannot span positive cycles” and “induces no
54+ % % positive cycle” in Sec. 3.1.4? Unfortunately, I don't know what to
55+ % % suggest.
56+ % \end{itemize}
57+ % \item Christoph's comments
58+ % \begin{itemize}
59+ % \item
60+ % I have one comment regarding the future work section where it says that it
61+ % is considered to add "support for arbitrary positive loops". Since the
62+ % second half of the sentence talks about redefining atoms in incremental
63+ % programs, I was wondering if these two features are meant to be used
64+ % together, i.e., redefining atoms in a cyclic fashion (which would
65+ % contradict the outcome of our discussion after Cristina's defense). If not,
66+ % then it should be clarified which kind of positive loops are meant here
67+ % since most positive loops are already supported (maybe over aggregates?).
68+ % \item
69+ % Another question concerns Section 3.1.11 (conditional literals), where I
70+ % was wondering how the rule would be instantiated if person(jane) and
71+ % person(john) were no fact but derivable atoms. Then meet would only depend
72+ % on the available atoms whose corresponding person atoms are currently true.
73+ % Maybe one should give another example which demonstrates this. (My idea
74+ % would be to use default-negation to derive an intermediate atom if there is
75+ % a person who is not available, and then use another default-negation to
76+ % check if this atom is not true.).
77+ % \end{itemize}
7878\end {itemize }
7979
8080% %% Local Variables:
0 commit comments