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

RE: [BLD] comments on BLD draft

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:25:49 -0400
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFDF8C@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Thanks a lot, Christian,

I've implemented all of your comments, except


> - 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?

They are already listed here:

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Terms

2.2 Terms
. . .
Definition (Term).
. . .
8. Externally defined terms. If t is a term then External(t) is an externally defined term.
. . .


> - 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?

Yes, "any number" conventionally refers to "*" (0, 1, 2, ...).
The empty group comes handy, e.g., to initialize a group construction process.


Best,
Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: April 15, 2008 8:57 AM
To: RIF WG
Subject: [BLD] comments on BLD draft


Harold,

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 
redundant.

- 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 
dialects");

- 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  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 
framework).

CHeers,

Christian
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 14:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT