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

review of RIF UCR (ACTION-539)

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:11:36 -0400
To: "RIF" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF041F220E.5F855CDF-ON85257483.000634ED-85257483.006EED08@us.ibm.com>
Hi all,

The UCR document has been significantly reworked [10]-[11] since 
the last published draft, in accordance with reviews [1]-[3] and 
discussions [4]-[9] at recent telecons and F2F10. The eight UCR-related
resolutions about requirements from the June 3 [8] and June 10 [9] 
telecons
have been accurately reflected in the document.(unless the capitalization 
of
 "SHOULD" matters in 5.2.14 - caps in resolution, lowercase in document). 

I think UCR can be published as a working draft.

The refinement should continue for the next WD after this one, and I'll
 send review comments separately.  Some minor editorial or obvious
 inconsistency type comments are included below.

Stella


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0098.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0118.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0110.html

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0105.html
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/att-0113/25-rif-minutes.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0138.html
[7] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0154/rif-minutes-20052008.html
[8] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/att-0021/RIF_Telecon_minutes__3-Jun-08.htm
[9] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/att-0042/10-June-2008-rif-minutes.html

[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0175.html
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0186.html


Comments:

Abstract:
-------------
   I think everything but the first sentence could be deleted. The rest of 

   the material is covered in the introduction. 

   or what follows the first sentence could be compressed to something 
like:
        The purpose of the RIF Use Cases and Requirements (RIF-UCR) 
         document  is twofold. First, it  illustrates the need for and 
benefits of
         using RIF.  Second,  it documents the goals and requirements that
         guided the design of the RIF Framework and dialects.

  otherwise:
        shapedd --> shaped
 
2 Goals
-----------
     Last sentence:
         Sections 5 --> Section 5 

3 Structure of RIF
----------------------
     (as a future comment, I think this section should be
      in another document)

     The 4th to last paragraph says that each logic-based dialect
     is required to specialize FLD, but the overview to FLD says
     they either should or justify why they don't.

     The last paragraph says that the presentation syntax is not
     normative, but it is normative for BLD.

4 Use Cases
------------------
    2nd para:
        guide users its --> guide users to its

    3rd para:
        illustrations how --> illustrations of how


5  Requirements
---------------------
     Does the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph conflict with the
     editor's note in section 5.1.6?

Document
--------------
     The use of "the RIF" (as opposed to RIF) seems awkward, and
     is used inconsistently in the document (sometimes "the RIF", 
     sometimes "RIF").

     DTB and BLD use to xs: prefix for datatypes, but UCR is
     using xsd:
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 20:12:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:52 GMT