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

RE: [RIF BLD] metadata and XML syntax

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:54:48 -0400
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFE206@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "Michael Kifer" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>

Jos, Axel,

Thanks, we did further edits, in particular to address your below suggestions.
Jos, in Sect. 2.5 we now have: Yet, since  is a conjunction, some conjuncts
can be used to provide metadata targeted to the object part, t, of the frame. 


We think BLD is now ready to be frozen, except for the mime type appendix,
which need to be drafted, discussed and added to all LC documents.

Regarding the At Riks macro, we suggest this replacement:

Note: This feature is "at risk" and will be removed from this specification if not sufficiently implemented. 
This feature is "at risk" and might be removed based on the feedback.

Harold, Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jos de Bruijn
Sent: July 1, 2008 9:47 AM
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: Axel Polleres; Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - part2

. . .

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

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
Sent: June 25, 2008 12:27 AM
To: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
Subject: ACTION-533 completed and remarks to BLD.

1) ACTION-533 (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/533)
    is now completed:

    I added a subsection on resolving Relative IRIs in the DTB document,
    cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Relative_IRIs

2) Along the way, I realized two problems in the EBNF Grammar in the BLD

  -  The constructions for "Const"  in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of BLD
     are still

     Const          ::= '"' UNICODESTRING '"^^' SYMSPACE

     whereas I had understood that we had agreed that the full Grammar
     for 'Const' including the shortcuts defined  in DTB should be
     replicated in BLD. Now that Section "Shortcuts for Constants in
     RIF's Presentation Syntax"
     is stable from my side, I think this change can be implemented.

   - The first part of the EBNF in Section 2.6.2 several times references
     a non-terninal IRI which is nowhere defined.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jos de Bruijn [mailto:debruijn@inf.unibz.it] 
Sent: June 27, 2008 4:45 AM
To: Michael Kifer; Boley, Harold
Subject: [RIF BLD] metadata and XML syntax

Michael, Harold,

I have two concerns about the syntax for metadata in BLD (section 2.5) 
and a concern about the XML syntax.

Section 2.5 states that every term can be preceded by an annotation. 
This precludes annotation of formulas.  I guess this is a mistake.
Then, as already point out in the second paragraph of the section, the 
syntax is ambiguous.  Besides such ambiguity being undesirable in the 
presentation syntax, it prohibits defining the XML syntax in an 
unambiguous way, because it is meant (as I always understood it) to be 
defined in terms of the presentation syntax.

This brings me to the XML syntax, which actually does not seem to be 
defined (there is no definition of what an RIF documents in XML form is).
the only thing resembling a definition is the XML schema, which is, as 
we all agreed, is sufficient for defining the syntax of the language.
there is a mapping between the presentation and XML syntaxes in section 
4.3, but it's unclear what the status is of this mapping.  It seems to 
be useful for understanding the XML syntax, but it does not have a 
definition status.  In addition, it seems incomplete.  For example, 
nothing is mentioned about namespaces, it does not allow for documents 
that have both unary and binary import directives, and the mapping for 
the presentation syntax does not seem in line with the definition in 
section 2.5 (and "Classtag" is undefined).
I would suggest to add a definition of what an RIF document in XML form 
(or whatever you want to call it) actually is, in terms of a translation 
from the presentation syntax.

Best, Jos
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
Public speaking is the art of diluting a two-
minute idea with a two-hour vocabulary.
   - Evan Esar
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 01:57:07 UTC

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