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.


Proofreading comments:

     Need to remove the references to the abstract syntax.

   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 

         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) ?
   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 
              also,  the first part of the sentence refers to term{} 
instead of term (above said just names would be used)
     2nd to last para before (beginning with "Free variables 
             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 
             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").

     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

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

     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)?
     need to add the UML diagram.
     The wording of this section heading is different from and

     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
    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 

   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" ? 

   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"  :-)

    1st para:
          andtyped --> and typed

     last line of "***" comment beginning "Because of the difference in 
           string --> int
      7th para:
           change "[RDF-Semantics]" to the appropriate link?

       8th para:
            formatting problem with D^RIF^ (when it occurs in a link)
      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. -
    The theorems in these 4 sections need to be updated to use the TRr 
notation instead
    the TRs-subscript notation.
     table, 7th forall
              one y (first slot name) and one x (third slot name) are 
missing the "?"
    formatting of D^RIF^ in the heading

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

Wording suggestions:
   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 

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

         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 

             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 

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

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

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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:48 UTC