W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

[RIF] comments on BLD, April 10 version

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:25:15 -0400
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4848F20E.BEE493EF-ON85257426.00814C89-85257428.0049B96C@us.ibm.com>
    The snapshot version has problems with list numbering and lettering on 
some lists. 
    (missing items in the sequence).

     Any comments below on list items use the numbering in the wiki 

1.0  Overview

    3rd para:
       Should this say which specification takes precedence in the 
unlikely event
       that they differ? (The OWL semantics document gives two normative 
       of a semantics and says which takes precedence if a conflict should 
ever arise)

    4th para:
       Is the comment about planned extensions up to date -- for example, 
with respect
       to buillt-ins and XML primitive data types?

2.1  Alphabet of RIF-BLD
    2nd to last para:
         There's a "?" at the end of the sentence

 2.2 Terms
     1st para:
         to any kind of these constructs -->
         to any of these constructs

     Definition (list):
            item 3.
               The term t here --> the constant t here
                (just to be more specific?)

          item 8.
               if t is a term -->
               if t is a positional or named argument term 
               there's a "?" at the end of the last sentence

 2.3 Well-formedness of Terms
     This section doesn't explicitly define a well-formed (non external) 
term - only
      a  well-formed set of formulas. Add a sentence saying that a 
      term is one that occurs in a well-formed set of fomulas (?)

     after the first bulleted list:
         make "supported RIF data types" a link

     second bulleted list, 2nd bullet:
           (Si element ArgNames), which are allowed -->
           (Si element ArgNames) that are allowed.

     last sentence:
             then the occurrence of p is considered to be a predicate 
occurrence. -->
             then p is considered to be a predicate.

 2.4 formulas
    1st para, 1st sentence:
           This doesn't seem like a good definition of atomic formula 
because the only
            way that you know p is a predicate symbol is by knowing that 
it is (occurs in
            the context of) an atomic formula?

      4th para:
           The following formulas lead to the notion of a RIF-BLD rule -->
           The following formulas define RIF-BLD rules.

       2nd to last para:
            are intended to represent -->
            are used to represent

            there's a "?" at the end

      last para:
            some of that syntax -->
            some of the syntax

 2.5  EBNF Grammar for the Presentation Syntax of RIF-BLD
        2nd bullet:
             This is done on intentionally -->
              This is done intentionally 

              is intended as a tool for -->
              is used only for

       1st para:
             body of the RIF-BLD rules -->
              body of RIF-BLD rules

             The grammar doesn't include a production for SYMSPACE.

       2nd para:
             delete the part about RIF-FLD allowing arbitrary 
             (because this section is for people not interested in FLD ?) 
       3rd para:
             Names are just denoted,,, -->
             Names are denoted...

             last sentence:
                   or to user defined external functions and predicates?

       Example 1:
             1st para:
                   object properties, or property values -->
                   object properties, and property values

              three of the frame examples include membership formulas in 
              position of object id, but that is not allowed according to 
the syntax.

     1st sentence:
           syntax for Horn rules -->
           syntax for RIF-BLD rules

3.2 Semantic Structures
   2nd para:
         Const, which denote -->
         Const that denote

   list of mappings:
          Either add the word total to items 1,2,3, 10 (for consistency) 
or remove it
          from all items since it already says just before the list that 
all the mappings 
          are total. 

           item 3:
               2nd sub bullet
                    that are individual object -->
                    that are individual objects

           item 5:
               Maybe the example at the end would be more meaningful if it 
               [?A->?B ?C->?B] and instantiated  ?A and ?C with a and ?B 
with b.

3.3 Interpretation of Formulas
     item 6:
             Since the different attribute/value pairs are supposed to be 
understood as conjunction -->
             Since the bag of attribute/value pairs represents the 
conjunction of all the pairs 

4.3.1 Translation of RIF-BLD condition language
    Remove the two entries from the translation table for membership and 
subclass formulas
   as frame object id.  (because it's not allowed according to the syntax)

5.1  The Syntax of RIF-BLD as a Specialization of RIF-FLD

   2. Assignment of signatures to each constant symbol -->
   2. Assignment of signatures to each constant and variable symbol

             for terms with named arguments and predicates with arguments 
named... -->
             for terms and predicates with arguments named...

             In the last paragraph, the list of contexts is missing: 
"function of one particular
             arity or with certain argument names" 

         c, d & f:
             SigNames --> ArgNames

             outdent the last paragraph

            Delete the last sentence of the last paragraph, or reword.
             (because signatures are not part of (and names not reserved 
              any RIF language?)
    3. Supported types of terms 

          1st bullet:
                I think the reference/link should be to section 2.4 of FLD 
instead of 2.8 

          2nd bullet, 1st sub bullet :
               says that a variable can be an atomic formula in RIF-FLD, 
but the presentation
               syntax for FLD does not allow a variable to be an atomic 

    5. Supported formulas

         1st bullet:
              --> A RIF-BLD condition is an atomic formula, a conjunctive 
or disjunctive combination
                   of atomic formulas with optional existential 
quantification of variables, or an external
                   atomic formula.

5.2 The Semantics of RIF-BLD as a Specialization of RIF-FLD

    The third paragraph (1 sentence) can be deleted because it 
     repeats the second paragraph.

    1st bullet: The effect of the syntax
             Aren't there several other syntax specializations that 
simplify the semantics,
             such as that predicate and function symbols must be 

      2nd bullet:
              Clearly, <t is a total order here. -->
               <t is a total order.

      4th bullet:
            last para:
                   for entailment of RIF-BLD condtiions -->
                   for entailment of existentially closed RIF-BLD 
conditions  (?)

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 13:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:50 UTC