RE: [UCR] editorial comments on UCR document

Hi Axel,

In the words of MoinMoin, "your attention to detail is appreciated."

> As I am not a native speaker, some of my comments might be void.

Actually, I think this sometimes helps -- native speakers are probably
more likely to gloss over typos etc.

> 1) 1. Introduction,
> 
>   2nd paragraph:
>   "The purpose of this document is provide"
>   -->
>   "The purpose of this document is to provide"

Fixed. (Well, on the wiki only for now, of course.)

>   last paragraph
>   "as to what the RIF will, and will not, cover can be made"
>   "as to what the RIF will and will not cover can be made"
>   (i.e. remove commas)

I prefer:
"... as to what the RIF will (and will not) cover can be made."

> 2) 2. Use Cases
> 
> 2nd paragraph, last sentence"
> "However, this informality may lead readers to the conclusion 
> that rules can perform arbitrary actions in the real world. 
> This is not the case; the RIF WG has not yet decided on the 
> ultimate power that rules will have."
> 
>   This might be a more severe cvomment than the others, but I honestly
>   find these two sentences more confusing than enlightning 
> and would opt
>   for removing it. It doesn't seem to add anything.

This "disclaimer" was proposed by Peter
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0149.html)

and it was decided during last week's telecon to add it. Could you
suggest an alternative version?

> 3) 2.1
> 
> "are defined on their Purchasing web site"
> -->
> "are defined on their purchasing web site"
> (capitalization)

Fixed.

> 4) 2.2
> "The negotiation is based on the policies, which are 
> specified as rules, and the credentials Emptor and Venditor 
> have, they are disclosed
> (interchanged) so as to automatically establish trust with 
> the goal of successfully completing the transaction."
> 
> Split sentence at "[...] have, they are disclosed [...]" :
> "[...] have. These rules andcredentials are disclosed [...]"

Nasty comma splice. Fixed.

> 5)
> "Different choices exist for implementing the above given 
> constraints as rules the Emptor has; choosing the type of 
> rules for implementing policies depends also on the 
> capabilities the Emptor system has."
> 
> This reads strange, consider slight reformulation at least, 
> add "system"
> between "Emptor" and "has" in the first half of the sentence.

Yes, it does read strange. How about this:

"Different choices exist for implementing the above constraints
as rules; choosing the type of rules for implementing policies
depends also on the capabilities of the Emptor system."

(The original isn't quite clear to me, but I think this version doesn't
lose anything.)

I fixed an earlier occurrence of "the Emptor" as well.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:21 PM
> To: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: [UCR] editorial comments on UCR document
> 
> 
> Following the action item taken in today's telecon, I send 
> below some minor editorial comments which I think should 
> still be considered before publicaton based on this version:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060628.html
> 
> As I am not a native speaker, some of my comments might be void.
> 
> 1) 1. Introduction,
> 
>   2nd paragraph:
>   "The purpose of this document is provide"
>   -->
>   "The purpose of this document is to provide"
> 
>   last paragraph
>   "as to what the RIF will, and will not, cover can be made"
>   "as to what the RIF will and will not cover can be made"
>   (i.e. remove commas)
> 
> 2) 2. Use Cases
> 
> 2nd paragraph, last sentence"
> "However, this informality may lead readers to the conclusion 
> that rules can perform arbitrary actions in the real world. 
> This is not the case; the RIF WG has not yet decided on the 
> ultimate power that rules will have."
> 
>   This might be a more severe cvomment than the others, but I honestly
>   find these two sentences more confusing than enlightning 
> and would opt
>   for removing it. It doesn't seem to add anything.
> 
> 3) 2.1
> 
> "are defined on their Purchasing web site"
> -->
> "are defined on their purchasing web site"
> (capitalization)
> 
> 4) 2.2
> "The negotiation is based on the policies, which are 
> specified as rules, and the credentials Emptor and Venditor 
> have, they are disclosed
> (interchanged) so as to automatically establish trust with 
> the goal of successfully completing the transaction."
> 
> Split sentence at "[...] have, they are disclosed [...]" :
> "[...] have. These rules andcredentials are disclosed [...]"
> 
> 5)
> "Different choices exist for implementing the above given 
> constraints as rules the Emptor has; choosing the type of 
> rules for implementing policies depends also on the 
> capabilities the Emptor system has."
> 
> This reads strange, consider slight reformulation at least, 
> add "system"
> between "Emptor" and "has" in the first half of the sentence.
> 
> 
> All for now, I will add more issues in a subsequent mail/on 
> the issues list which should be considered on the next iteration
> 
> axel
> --
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2006 18:07:35 UTC