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

[RIF] BLD comments

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:42:26 -0400
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF916C8DF5.9939657A-ON85257489.005F987A-8525748A.00404FBE@us.ibm.com>
Hi,

These are minor editorial and simple error comments, and not issues with 
regard to publication.

Stella


simple error:
------------------
   For import directives that specify a profile, the profile identifier is 
defined as an IRI constant in 
   SWC, but as a term in several places in BLD:
 
       section 2.3
           Definition (formula):
               document bullet
                   directive bullet
                       import directive bullet

       section 2.6.2, ebnf grammar 



editorial suggestions:
-------------------------------
Section 2
    1st para
        but not intended --> but is not intended

Section 2.1
     Can Document and Group just be added to the list in the previous 
bullet?

Section 2.2
      "Internal base term" is defined to simplify the language in the 
definition
      of term, but it is never used in that definition. It could be 
deleted (and
      appropriate update made to "base term")

Section 2.3
       Definition (formula):
              The para between the condition and rule implication breaks
               up the definition. Can it be indented to the level of the 
condition
               bullet? (and the last sentence deleted)

               numbering the outer list would make it more clear which are
               the main bullets of the formula definition

               document bullet,  group  sub-bullet:
                    that makes the actual logical content... -->
                    that contains the logical content...

               document bullet, directive sub-bullet
                    The base and prefix sub-bullets are written as if 
prefix is
                     first in the text, but it is second.

                     indented para at the end of the bullet:
                         A document formula can contain a sequence of 
                         directives, all optional and with at most one 
base
                         directive. The base directive, if present, must 
be first, 
                         followed by any number of prefix directives, 
followed
                         by any number of import directives.

                    last bullet:
                        better as a para indented to the appropriate level
                        Also, since the directive bullet already says that 
directives
                        are all optional, could just add such a sentence 
to the
                        group bullet and remove this bullet.

       para following defintion (formula):
             that are built with the help of these components -->
             that are built using them.

Section 2.4
      3rd para:
           since phi is a conjuction -->
           since phi can be a conjunction   ?

      4th para:
           It is suggested to use -->
           We suggest the use of

Section 2.5
       1st para:
            a requirement is that no constant is allowed to appear in more 
than one context -->
            it is required that no constant appear in more than one 
context

       2nd para:
           If this correctly captures the meaning, I think it's more 
clear:

                     The set of all constant symbols, const, is 
partitioned into subsets as follows:

                         --  A subset of individuals
 
                                 The symbols in const that belong to the 
primitive datatypes
                                  are required to be individuals
 
                        --  A number of subsets for predicate symbols

                                The symbols in each subset all share the 
same 
                                arity, argument style (named or 
positional), and
                                internal/external designation
 
                        -- A number of subsets for function symbols

                                The symbols in each subset all share the 
same 
                                arity, argument style (named or 
positional), and
                                internal/external designation

       3rd para: 
            suggest to remove the 2 bullets and just put those 2 sentences 
with
            the previous sentence to make a paragraph.

       Definition (Context of a symbol)
            1st bullet:
                 parenthetical comment:
                       I'm don't think it's clear what the parenthetical 
comment 
                       about arity and named/positional arguments is 
saying.
                       That positional and named argument forms are 
different
                        contexts?

Section 2.6
     Maybe say how the shortcuts for constants fit in. Since they
     are only defined in the EBNF, are they not  part of the normative
     PS?

     2nd bullet:
         says the EBNF does not address the details of how constants
         and variables are represented, but it seems to address at least
         some details?

     3rd bullet:
         (The non-normative status of the EBNF grammar should not
           be confused with the normative status of the RIF-BLD 
presentation
           syntax)
         -->
         Note, however, that the RIF-BLD presentation syntax, as specified
         in mathematical English, is normative.
 
Section 2.6.1
      would be better to have a sentence right under the EBNF
      saying that CONSTSHORT, ANGLEBRACKIRI and
     CURIE are defined in DTB (and ref). And then remove those
     (location) details from the text several  paragraphs down.
 
Section 2.6.2
     2nd para after the 2nd box
           Base and Prefix just serve as shortcut mechanisms for
           (long) IRIs
           -->
           Base and Prefix serve as shortcut mechanisms for IRIs

           A RIF-BLD group is a nested collection... -->
           A RIF-BLD group is a collection... 
              (nesting is covered by the "nested" at the end
                of the sentence?)

     4th para after the 2nd box
         as conclusion --> as its conclusion 
         as premise --> as its premise 

     Example 3, before the box
          reference to RIF-DTB has an extra "["

Section 3
    1st para
         Do shortcuts for constants also have to be addressed
         here (along with the statement about Prefix and Base)?

Section 3.2
     list item #5
          represent an object --> represents an object

     list item #10
           reference to DTB needs to be corrected

Section 3.3
     1st sentence
           constitue --> constitute

Section 3.4
     2nd para.
        "To this end" doesn't  flow well from the previous sentence.
        how about just "We define..."

Section 3.5
    1st definition
        what does it mean to be labeled with a document formula?
 
    2nd definition
         multi-structure, which contains --> multi-structure that contains

         are ignored here --> are not covered here

Section 4
     1st definition:
        w.r.t. --> with respect to

Section 4.1
     1st box:
         add  ", with optional 'ordered' attribute" to the
         args and slot items

     para above example 5:
          utilize --> use  (twice)

          XML term elements such as const -->
          the XML term element const       ?

          datatype can be --> datatype is  ?
 
          to indicate the orderedness of children of the
          elements args and slot it is associated with 
          -->
          to indicate whether the children of args
          and slots elements are ordered

Section 4.2
    1st para
         We now extend the RIF-BLD serialization -->
         We now extend the set of RIF-BLD serialization elements

         2nd sentence -->
         The extended set includes the tags listed below.

         should the reference to the PS syntax be to the
         normative specification of it, instead of to the EBNF?

Section 4.3.1
          does anything have to be said about shortcut constants?

         1st para, 2nd sentence:
              I think it would be just as clear, and read easier if
              the "Presentation|XML" were deleted.

         1st para, 3rd: 
              ...differentiate between the terms...from terms....  -->
              ...differentiate between the terms...and the terms.... 
 
Section 5
      do the formulas have to be well-formed?

     1st para:
          the conformant systems --> conformant systems

      2nd para:
          ,which --> that (twice)

      conformant producer:
           Formally  ...  in L -->
           Formally,  ... in the subset of L  ? 

     RIF-BLD specific clauses:
           The preceding part of section 5 was not for BLD, but for
            all of RIF?

            2nd bullet:
                inputs which do not match --> inputs that do not match

            3rd bullet:
                 externals that are required... --> externals required...  
 
 
Section 6.1
     item 2, sub bullet d:
          2 sentences in a row (the last 2) start with "Thus." 
          How about "Accordingly," for the last one?

     para between item 2 and 3:
          the author --> the ruleset author?

     item 3,
         2nd sub bullet:
             significant restrctions. This is so in order...  -->
             significant restrictions, in order...
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 11:43:36 GMT

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