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

RE: [RIF] BLD comments

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:11:19 -0400
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFE285@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "Stella Mitchell" <cleo@us.ibm.com>, "RIF" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Thanks for your suggestions and questions.
We think we have addressed all of them in some form.
Please have a look.

Harold & Michael


From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Stella Mitchell
Sent: July 18, 2008 8:42 AM
Subject: [RIF] BLD comments


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


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

Section 2.2 
      "Internal base term" is defined to simplify the language in the
      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
               bullet? (and the last sentence deleted) 

               numbering the outer list would make it more clear which
               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
                         directive. The base directive, if present, must
be first, 
                         followed by any number of prefix directives,
                         by any number of import directives. 

                    last bullet: 
                        better as a para indented to the appropriate
                        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

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

                     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
                                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
                                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
                       about arity and named/positional arguments is
                       That positional and named argument forms are

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 

     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
         Note, however, that the RIF-BLD presentation syntax, as
         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

         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
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 Monday, 21 July 2008 01:12:07 UTC

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