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

Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - part2

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:46:37 +0200
Message-ID: <486A272D.6030304@inf.unibz.it>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

>> But, concerning "RIF-BLD document formula": it is used in some places 
>> (even "RIF-BLD document" is used), but there is no definition.
> I now added "RIF-BLD" in front of "document formula" in the definition.
>> I would suggest to include this definition where "document formula" is 
>> defined (i.e., section 2.4), or even add an additional section.
>> on that note, when strictly reading the definitions, annotations do not 
>> seem to be part of document formulas.  So, I would recommend to define 
>> documents after defining annotations, and taking the annotations into 
>> account in the definition.
> I now added a definition of "RIF-BLD document" as a "RIF-BLD document formula"
> with or without an annotation. This is in the short section about annotations.

Thanks!  I added an anchor so that I can refer to it.

>> Actually, in order to allow annotations in front of arbitrary sub 
>> formulas, annotations should be included in the definition of a formula. 
>>   For example, one bullet in the Definition (Well-formed formula) could be:
>> * ''Annotated formula'': If psi is a well-formed formula, then (* id phi 
>> *) psi  also a well-formed formula.
> I added a clarifying clause that annotations are allowed for subformulas and
> subterms. However, I did not add annotated formulas among the bullets in the
> main definition, since it would complicate things. This is because, I assume,
> we do not want annotations to be added to already annotated terms and formulas.
> So, the nice recursive nature of the definitions would have to be spoiled with
> qualifications.

I see your point. I guess it is fine the way it is now.

Another thing: I see that you addressed the ambiguity I was complaining 
about earlier [1].
I still have one potential concern here: the convention you describe 
should avoid ambiguity.  However, it seems that this precludes writing 
annotations about particular terms (and maybe also formulas):
how do I write an annotation about t in t[w -> v]?
I guess this could be done using parentheses.  Perhaps it is worthwhile 
mentioning that in the text.

Best, Jos

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0189.html

> 	--michael  
>> Thus, Jos
>>> 	--michael  

Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
   - Isaac Asimov
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 12:45:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC