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

[BLD] comments on BLD draft

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:56:37 +0200
Message-ID: <480497F5.7040202@ilog.fr>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Here a couple comments on BLD, most of them minor. I reviewed the draft 
dated April 7, but checked that my comments still applied to the current 
version. I did not read others' comments yet, so my remarks may be 

- Sect. 1 - Overview: the paragraph that start with "One important 
fragment of RIF is called the Condition Language" seems to be a leftover 
of yonder. With BLD being BLD and not Core anymore, and with FLD 
defining the syntactic framework, I believe that that paragraph is, at 
best, confusing and, at worst, wrong. It should be removed;

- same section: RIF-RLF is referenced twice as the "RIF framework": to 
avoid confusion, it should always be qualified ("RIF framework for logic 

- same section: "for the benefit of those who desire a quicker path to 
RIF-BLD and are not interested in the extensibility issues". maybe we 
could say seomthing about this spec being more directly useful for the 
implementers of BLD?

- section 2.2: Equality, class membership, subclass and frame terms 
allow only simple, positional and named-argument terms where individuals 
are expected: shouldn't external terms be allowed as well?

- section 2.4, "Rule implication: If φ is an well-formed": correct to 
"\phi is _a_ well-formed";

- sction 2.5.1, 2nd sentence ("It is intended to be a common part of a 
number of RIF dialects, including RIF PRD."): same as my first comment. 
I thing that sentence should be removed;

- section 2.5.2, "For convenient reference, we reproduce the condition 
language part of the EBNF below": is that really useful? The EBNF for 
the condition language is about one page earlier only...

- same section, production for Group says (RULE | Group)*, and text says 
  that a "Group contains any number of RULES": is it intentional to 
allow empty groups?

- sect. 5.1: "This section defines the precise relationship between the 
syntax of RIF-BLD and the syntactic framework of RIF-FLD." That's the 
presentation syntax of RIF-BLD, right? That should be precised;

- Sect. 5.1, item 5, 2nd bullet, 1st bullet: "In particular, unlike in 
RIF-FLD, a variable is not an atomic formula in RIF-BLD." It is not so 
much "unlike in RIF-FLD" than a specialisation of RIF-FLD (the point is 
that BLD and FLD are not comparable, one being a dialect and the other a 


Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 11:57:51 UTC

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