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

AW: review of RIF UCR (ACTION-539)

From: Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:32:40 +0200
Message-ID: <20080712073240.98300@gmx.net>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org, cleo@us.ibm.com

Hi Stella,

Thanks a lot for the review.

I implemented all of your comments except that I kept section 3. I think it helps the readers of UCR to understand the relations to the existing RIF documents, in particular to the RIF dialects which are illustrated with concrete examples throughout the use cases and which are reflected by the general requirements described in UCR. 

Thanks,

Adrian

________________________________________
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Stella Mitchell
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Juli 2008 22:12
An: RIF
Betreff: review of RIF UCR (ACTION-539)


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: 



-- 
GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und Spaß haben mit Pastry Passion!
http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free/puzzle/6169196
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 07:33:20 GMT

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