W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > October 2007

comments on 10/8 version of BLD (no issues)

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:51:28 -0400
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7FB855D1.C0E91768-ON8525736E.005F48B0-8525736E.00621934@us.ibm.com>
Hi Michael, Harold and Jos,

I separated comments into two categories, one for typos/ things I thought 
could be more clear, and another for
 phrasing suggestions.

Stella


Proofreading comments:
-----------------------------------

Abstract
------------
     Need to remove the references to the abstract syntax.

2.1
----
   4rd para:
         does not draw sharp boundary      --> 
         does not draw a sharp boundary          ( or, "does not 
distinguish" ?)

         denote individuals from symbols --> denote individuals and the 
symbols

         preficate --> predicate

   5th para, last sentence:
        so that symbols could be polymorphic, polyadic, and be allowed to 
occur in several different contexts (for example, both as individuals and 
as predicates)   -->
        so that symbols could be polymorphic (i.e. be allowed to occur in 
several different contexts) and polyadic (i.e take a varying number of 
arguments) ?

2.1.1.1
---------
   1st para:
         Exists, auxiliary  symbols like (,), and so on.  -->
         Exists, and auxiliary symbols such as "(" and ")". 

   1st bullet under definition of coherent signatures:
         represent --> represents

    3rd bullet under definition of coherent signatures:
        says that if one signature name is less than another signature 
name, then that signature's
        expression set is a subset of the other's.   Is it supposed to be 
the other way around --
        that if one expression set is a subset of another, then that 
signature's name is defined
        to be less than the other's?
 

    para "Well-formed terms and fomulas" 
          each constant and formed symbol is associated --> ? 

          signatures in coherence --> signatures in coherent

 
     3rd para after "Examples":
            in the above. --> in the above example.

     para "Signatures in the condition language of rifBLD:
 
             2nd bullet:
                    For every integer arity n >= 0 -- > 
                    For every integer n >= 0            ?

     para  after "Signatures in the condition language of rifBLD":
               Is that true that the only requirement for a BLD uniterm or 
atomic formula to be 
               well-formed is that they contain no symbols that are used 
in more than one context?

     para before "Symbols spaces" para:
              We expect that most dialect     --> 
              We expect that most dialects

 
    just before the bulleted list of xml data types:
              explaned --> explained
 
              xsd:dateTime bullet 
                    new paragraph between this and the following sentence?

             rdf:XMLLiteral bullet:
                     This type of constant symbols represents -->
                     This type of constant symbol represents

             rif:text bullet:
                     This kind of constants represent  -->
                     This type of constant represents

    two sentences berore "LITERAL^^SYMSPACE"   (beginning with "The 
constant symbols") 
              should atomic be in the list of signatures (allowed by RIF 
BLD)?
              also,  the first part of the sentence refers to term{} 
instead of term (above said just names would be used)
 
2.1.1.2
---------
     2nd to last para before 2.1.1.3 (beginning with "Free variables 
arise")
             I find the first two sentences confusing. The first sentence 
says that
             free variables arise because condition can occur in an if 
part of a rule,
             but the following example shows free variables that are in a 
condition
             that is not in the if part of a rule. In the second sentence, 
 I'm not sure
             what "this" refers to (in "when this happens").

2.1.2
-------
     5th para:
            to var to --> var to
 
     9th para:  (beginning "Some symbol spaces")
            does rif:text belong in that list? (symbol spaces that are not 
data types)

      last para:
             four mapping ---> four mappings


2.2
----
     2nd para:
              a new kind of formulas  -->
              a new kind of formula 
                        or
              new kinds of formulas 


2.2.1.1
---------
    1st para:
             "The most important additions are...."    (aren't those the 
only additions?)

     para just before "Extended signatures for rifBLD:
             using logical connectives And, Or, the quantifier Exists, etc
. -->
             using the logical connectives And and Or, and the quantifier 
Exists.

     para "Extended signatures for rifBLD: 
             2nd bullet ("the terms that are allowed...")
                   is the first sub bullet necessary (doesn't the 2nd 
alone give the same restriction)?


2.2.1.2
---------
     need to add the UML diagram.


2.2.1.4
---------
     The wording of this section heading is different from 2.1.1.4 and 
3.1.1.4.


2.2.2
-------
     1st para:
              in the value position of an attribute -->
              in the value position of a slot                     (because 
it's called slot everywhere else)?


      2nd para:
             the semantic definitions does not change -->
             the semantic definition does not change

2.2.2.2
---------
    1st sub bullet of ISF & ISR bullets
           Each pair <s,v>   -->  Each argument <s,v>
                  (so that
                         each argument is a pair instead of a value 
                   rather than
                          each pair is a pair instead of a value)


    2nd sub bullet of ISF and ISR bullets
             The argument to ... is         -->
              The arguments  to... are 


2.3
----
   Is this section to be updated or removed for WD2?


Horn Rules section, semantics subsection 
--------------------------------------------------------------
    for the last few definitions (model of a rule set, and entailing a 
condition),  is it supposed
    to say "iff" instead of "if" ? 

4.1
----
   1st two *** comments:  (in case they stay in the published version)
        The first comment can be removed since it is already said in the 
paragraph above.

         second comment:   "ensuing threats" --> "ensuing threads"  :-)

4.1.1
-------
    1st para:
          andtyped --> and typed


     last line of "***" comment beginning "Because of the difference in 
Interpretation"
           string --> int 


4.1.2.2
---------
      7th para:
           change "[RDF-Semantics]" to the appropriate link?

       8th para:
            formatting problem with D^RIF^ (when it occurs in a link)


4.1.3.2
---------
      1st para:
              as RIF statements and graphs as sets of RIF statements. -->
              as RIF statements.
 
      3rd para:
              a formula with variables R -->
              a formula R with variables


      table,  3rd row, 3rd column
              tr(?x1) --> tr(x1)
              tr(?xn) --> tr(xn)

              tr(S):    there is no defintion for (plain) tr of a graph S.


4.1.3.5 - 4.1.3.8
---------------------
    The theorems in these 4 sections need to be updated to use the TRr 
notation instead
    the TRs-subscript notation.

4.1.3.6
---------
     table, 7th forall
              one y (first slot name) and one x (third slot name) are 
missing the "?" 


4.1.3.7
---------
    formatting of D^RIF^ in the heading


Appendix: specification
----------------------------------
    The UML diagram needs to be updated, and could be made more readable




Wording suggestions:
--------------------------------
1.0
----
   3rd para:
        with equality (and with a standard first-order semantics) -->
        with equality and with a standard first-order semantics.

       These latter features --> The last two features 

 
   4th para:
        Eventually, it is hoped --> We envision

   6th para:
        of a constant and of a predicate --> as a constant and as a 
predicate

2.1
----
   In sections 2.1 and 2.2 in general, signatures aren't referred to in a 
consistent style.
   When signatures are introduced, it says they will be referred to by 
name -  e.g "term", 
   but in the following sections they are sometimes referred to as e.g. 
"term{}" and
   sometimes just by name..

   4rd para:
        Instead, all constant --> Instead, all individual 

   5th para:
        rifBLD carefully selects signatures for the symbols -->
        rifBLD selects signatures for the symbols


2.1.1.1
---------
   2nd para:
         constant symbols that represent individuals, predicates and 
function symbols --> 
         constant symbols that represent individuals, predicates and 
functions.

         position of predicates and function symbols -->
         position of predicate and function symbols

    para "Well-formed terms and fomulas" 
         Signatures help control --> Signatures control

         1st sub-bullet under second bullet:
                 term that has a signature, which -->
                 term with a signature that

     para after "Examples", last sentence:
            since then p (a) would not be well-formed (in this case, p 
would have no arrow expression, which allows p to take just one argument) 
-->
            because p(a) would not be well-formed (since p has no arrow 
expression that  allows p to take just one argument)

     para "Signatures in the condition language of rifBLD:
             1st bullet:
                    is intended to represent contexts --> represents the 
context

             2nd bullet:
                    either an individual, a predicate of one particular 
arity, a builtin of one particular arity, or a function symbol of one 
particular arity -->
                    either an individual, a predicate of one particular 
arity, a builtin of one particular arity, or a function of one particular 
arity -->

             4th bullet:
                    it cannot compare predicate names or function symbols 
-->
                    it cannot compare predicate symbols or function 
symbols --> 

    bulleted list  "Symbols spaces" 

             rif:iri bullet:
                     A rif:iri constant is supposed to be interpreted as 
-->
                     A rif:iri constant should be interpreted as (or 
must?)

             rif:local bullet:
                     locally in their respective rule sets -->
                     locally in the rule set in which they are defined.

      para  "Symbols with undefined symbol spaces" 
              appropriate some of the symbol spaces, which -->
              appropriate some of the symbol spaces that -->


2.1.1.4
---------
     1st sentence:
           is given by a table as follows -->
           is given in the following table


2.1.2
-------
     3rd and 4th paras (sentences):
             combine these into one paragraph. 
 
     11th para:
            The value space of a data type should not be confused with -->
             The value space of a data type is distinct from 


2.2.1.1
---------
     2nd para, 1st bullet:
            their order is considered to be immaterial -->
            their order is immaterial


     3rd para, 1st bullet:
            is assumed to be immaterial -->
            is immaterial

            is assumed to yield the same expression -->
            yields the same expression
 
     4th para:
            their order is considered immaterial -->
            their order is immaterial

      para "Atomic formulas and general condition formulas":
            atomic well-formed formula -->
            well-formed atomic formula            (2 times)  (to be 
consistent with rest of doc)
 

2.2.1.4
---------
     1st para:
            is given by a table, below, -->
            is given in the table below


4.0
----
    General:  change all occurences of "an RIF" to "a RIF"


4.1
----
    para "Four semantics are defined":
           RDF, with the sense that  D entailment -->
           RDF. D entailment 
Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 17:52:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:43 GMT