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

[RIF] comments on FLD, April 10 version

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:44:01 -0400
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAD5F4DE7.227069DE-ON8525742A.0002941E-8525742B.00098660@us.ibm.com>
 1.0 Overview
  1st para:
      RIF-BLD gives precise...-->
      RIF-FLD gives precise...

      but omits certain details -->
      but allows them to be parameterized. 

      mechanisms (even leave out some elements of RIF-FLD) to... -->
      mechanisms, which may include leaving out some elements of RIF-FLD, 

  3rd para:
       in a direct, but equivalent, way, which -->
       in  a direct, but equivalent, way that

       without references to the framework -->
       without relying on the framework
   4th para, 1st bullet:
        The presentation syntax of a dialect is not intended to be a 
         syntax for that dialect. For instance, the presentation syntax 
        Since the presentation syntax is not intended to be a concrete
        syntax for any dialect, it deliberately...

  syntactic framework
        2nd bullet:
           These are the usual terms, which are most commonly used in... 
           These terms are commonly used in..

        3rd bullet:
           the order between the arguments is immaterial. -->
           the order of the arguments is immaterial.

        4th bullet:
           resemble to named arguments -->
           resemble named arguments

  semantic framework
        1st bullet:
            to accomodate the dialects -->
            to accomodate dialects

            logics that were designed -->
            logics that are designed

            but other dialects can be three-valued, four-valued, and so 
on. -->
            but other dialects can have additional truth values.

        2nd bullet: 
            Some symbol spaces (which are part of the RIF syntactic 
            may have fixed interpretation. 
               Some symbol spaces (recall that symbol spaces are part of 
the RIF
               syntactic framework) have fixed interpretations.
                Some symbol spaces that are part of the RIF syntactic 
                have fixed interpretations.

            Symbol spaces that have special semantics are called data 
            A symbol space whose symbols have a fixed interpretation in 
            semantic structure is called a data type.
                     (data type is defined like this in another part of 
the doc, and it
                       seems more descriptive)

  XML serialization framework
           for serializing the various parts of the presentation syntax of 
RIF-FLD. -->
           for mapping the presentation syntax to the concrete XML 
interchange format.

2.0 Syntactic Framework
  1st para:
       explains the overall idea of deriving the syntax... -->
       explains how to derive the syntax...

  1st para:
       by specializing the following parameters (which are defined in this 
document) -->
       by specializing the following parameters, which are defined in this 
2.2 Alphabet
   2nd to last para:
         ..to organize RIF-BLD rules into collections and annotate them 
with metadata. -->
        ...to organize RIF-FLD rules into collections optionally annotated 
with metadata.

   last para:
        " ...spelled out below"
                 doesn't flow well into the next section.

2.3 Symbol Spaces
   para "RIF supports..."
        RIF supports the following symbol spaces   -->
        RIF requires that all dialects include the following symbol spaces 

        as explained below -->
           <point more specifically to where it is explained.>
              (I didn't find it in this or the next section)
2.4 Terms
   Definition (Term)
       items 5 & 6 use "arbitrary term"  to describe their components, and 
       2 & 4 just use "term."  It's not clear whether  there's supposed to 
be a 
      distinction,  or what the restrictions are for the ones that just 
say "term."

       item 3
          are terms (positional, with named arguments, frame, etc) -->
          are arbitrary terms    (?) 

          Note that a term with no arguments, like f(), is both positional 
and is also
          considered to have named arguments. 
          Note that a term with no arguments, such as f(), is considered 
to be both
          positional and with named arguments.

      item 7
          if t is a term -->
          if t is any term other than a variable or External term.

     last para:
          Dialects can also restrict the contexts in which the various 
terms can
          occur. The mechanism that allows to control the context is 
called a
          signature and works as follows. 
          Dialects can also restrict the contexts in which the various 
          are allowed by using the mechanism of signatures. 

2.5  Schemas for Exernally Defined Terms
1st para:
      which externally defined functions or predicates, are acceptable as
      terms in a RIF dialect. 
      which externally defined terms are acceptable in a RIF dialect.
      it can be any term, including frames, classification terms, and so 
on. -->
      it can be any term, except for a variable or a nested externally 
defined term.
 Definition (Schema...:
      1st bulltet
              t is a term, as defined earlier; it is not permitted... -->
              t is a term as defined earlier, with the exception that it 
is not permitted...

  4th para:
       The names...are immaterial, but their order is. -->
       The names...are immaterial, but their order is important.
  5th para:
        or the variables -->
        of the variables

  last para:
        forl --> form

2.6 Signatures
   4th para:
      Dialects are expected to introduce -->
      Dialects may introduce

      RIF-BLD introduces one other signature name, term. -->
      RIF-BLD introduces one other signature name, individual.

    "A set of signatures is coherent iff"
            does this need to be qualified - by saying "FLD
            set of signatures" or by indicating that if a dialect doesn't
            (eg) include frames, its coherent set doesn't need the "->" 

2.7 Language of a RIF Dialect
     1st para:
          as defined below. -->
          as defined in the next section.

     3rd bullet:
          An assignment of signatures (from a coherent set of signatures) 
to... -->
          An assignment of signatures from a coherent set of signatures 

          to the symbols in Const. -->
          to the symbols in Const and Var.

          would not have been closed. -->
          would not be closed.

2.8  Well-formed Terms and Formulas 
    Definition (Well-formed formula):
          1st para:
                 iff one of its signatures is atomic or it is < atomic. 
                 iff one of its signatures is <= atomic.

                 Last sentence (of 1st para):
                       is requiring atomic to be on the right hand side of 
one of the arrow 
                       expressions for the signature "="  equivalent to 
saying that equality
                        terms have atomic as one of their signatures?

                       This note implies that all equality terms are 
atomic, but in section
                        2.6 under coherent set of signatures, it looks 
like you could 
                        make it so that some equality terms are atomic 
formulas and
                        some are not. And the note there says that "some" 
                        should be allowed as atomic fomulas. 
                        (same comments for frame and classification terms)

2.9  EBNF Grammar for the Presentation Syntax of RIF-FLD
    The part on signatures and well-formed terms allows a
    constant or variable symbol by itself to be an atomic
    formula, but the EBNF doesn't and EBNF is supposed 
    to be a superset of FLD syntax.

   1st para:
        notation have to be kept in mind. -->
        notation should be kept in mind.

   2nd bullet, last sentence:
         reword the sentence, since it's not concrete in BLD either
         even though BLD is a concrete syntax, and since FLD does
         specify a concrete XML syntax even though FLD is a framework. (?)
            -->  (from BLD)
                 "This is done intentionally since RIF's presentation 
syntax is used
                  as a tool for specifying the semantics and for 
illustration of the main
                  RIF concepts through examples.  RIF defines a concrete 
                  only for exchanging rules, and that syntax is XML-based, 
                  as a refinement and serialization of the EBNF syntax."

3.3  Primitive Data Types
       2nd para:
              All RIF dialects are expected to support -->
              All RIF dialects are required to support   (?)
3.4  Semantic Structures
     Definition (Semantic structure):
           1st list, item 4, 1st bullet:
                is a finite set --> is a finite bag

          1st list, item 5, 2nd bullet:
                can all be one paragraph instead of two.

           2nd list, item 9:
                 ?Xn/s1 --> ?Xn/sn

     The effect of signatures:
           1st para
                 supported by the dialect -->
                 supported by a dialect

           list, item 6:
               has an arrow expressions -->
               has arrow expressions

3.5  Interpretation of Formulas
    Definition (Truth valuation):
         item 9:
              ?Xn/s1 --> ?Xn/sn

3.6  Intended Semantic Structures
     2nd para:
           Each dialect of RIF is supposed to define the notion of 
           semantic structures...
           Each dialect of RIF that specializes FLD must define the set of
           intended semantic structures...
3.7  Logical Entailment
     2nd para:
          add the t subscript to the <=

     3rd para:
          non-monotonic logics -->
           the non-monotonic logics 

4.0 XML Serialization Framework
    1st para:
         must be well-formed also in RIF-FLD -->
         must also be well-formed in RIF-FLD. 

    Was there a decision about lists, or are they for a later draft?

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 01:44:50 UTC

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