[BLD] Comments on BLD ED frozen Oct 19

Michael, Harold,

Some final (editorial) comments :

- Use or RIF-BLD: there are still some RIF BLD (without the hyphen), 
e.g. second par of section 1;

- Same with RIF-PRD (refered to as both "RIF PRD" and "RIF-PRD");

- sect. 1, but-last par., "symbols that have more than one contextual 
use: e.g. of a constant and of a predicate": shouldn't that be "...as a 
constant and as a predicate"?

- Sometimes, the document makes assertions about RIF, without 
identifying a dialect, e.g. Sect 2.1.1.3, 3rd par., "The set of all 
constant symbols in RIF has a number of predefined subsets", or, more 
arguably: "RIF-compliant implementations must support the following 
symbols spaces" (same section, later). I suggest that, in WD2 at least, 
the unqualified reference to RIF be replaced by RIF-BLD.

- sect. 2.1.1.5, EBNF: linefeed before the | at the end of the Exists 
production

- sect. 2.1.1.5, 1st par. after the EBNF, "The exists formula, where 
Var+ stands for the list of free variables in CONDITION...": replace 
with "...where Var+ stands for a list of variables that are free in 
CONDITION..."; [This comment was already in my previous batch, but it 
seems that slipped through]

- next sentence: "In RIF BLD, it is the only kind of quantified formula 
but in other dialects..." must be modified, e.g. "...the only kind of 
quantified formula that is allowed in a condition, but..." [This comment 
was already in my previous batch, but it seems that slipped through]

- same sect., 3rd par. after the EBNF, "RIF-BLD presentation syntax does 
not commit to any particular vocabulary for the name of variables": 
isn't that contradictory with the production: Var::= '?' VARNAME? I 
suggest remove the '?' in the production;

- sect. 2.2: per resolution passed Aug. 28, that section should be 
"suitably labelled as "under discussion" with rationale for/against". We 
can maybe leave the "rationale" part if we do not have them ready; but 
we cannot leave the labelling part;

- sect. 2.2, 1st par., "Such a function maps an object id..." -> 
"...object identifier...";

- sect. 2.2.1.2, structural diagram missing (I have drafted one; 
however, I had to introduce several classes - SLOTFILLER, OBJECTREF, 
Member, Subclass - to keep the syntax properly stripped and aligned with 
the XML syntax; and, thus, it does not correspond strictly to the EBNF 
anymore)

- sect. 2.2.2.1, "If `f`is a term, then `obj(f) = f`": shouldn't that be 
"If `f`is a `TERM`, then `obj(f) = f`"?

- sect.2.2.2.2, definition of I,,slot,,: why is I,,slot,, defined as "a 
function from domain D to truth-valued functions..." and not, like the 
other mappings, as "a function from `const` to..."?

- sect. 3.1.1.1., 1st par., "All bound variables that occur in the rule 
are implicitly or explicitly universally quantified...": shouldn't that 
be "All free variables..."?

- same sentence: As decided and as specified in other places in the doc 
(e.g. sect. 3.1.1.2), all variables must be explicitly quantified -> 
"All free variables that occur in the rule are explicitly universally 
quantified"; or did I miss something?

- sect. 6, end notes: I suggest removing the end note on "intented 
models for rule sets", that is really out of BLD scope.

That'all (and that's not much)...

Christian