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

Re: [RIF] BLD comments, on 7/23 snapshot

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:43:52 -0400
To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080727174352.0f249fba@kiferserv>



On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:33:16 -0400
Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi Harold and Michael,
> 
> BLD looks quite good. I included some comments below.

Thanks, Stella.

> Comments:
> ----------------
>  In syntax, BLD defines an import profile to be a TERM and says that the 
>  semantics of 2-argument Import is given in SWC. SWC says "We note here 
> that
>  in the RIF-BLD profiles can be arbitrary terms.  Here we are concerned 
> only with the
>  restricted case that profiles are IRI constants."   So, is the semantics 
> of 2-argument
> imports for BLD adequately covered in SWC?

I am not sure I understand. Constants are a special kind of terms.
So there is no contradiction here. Perhaps you expected that
RDF+OWL would define the semantics for *all* statements of the form
Import(addr profile)? If so, then I added clarifications in the definition,
which should make this point clear.

All the other comments are editorial and we took care of them.
The following comment helped fix an oversight in Sec 6.1:

>        item #2 (assignment of signatures)
>             sub item  d:
>                    do there need to be separate signatures for externally 
> defined
>                    functions and predicates? Signatures are supposed to 
> match
>                    up with contexts, and section 2.5 defines separate 
> contexts
>                    for external symbols.

You are right here. Now I added separate signatures ef and ep for external
symbols.


	regards
	  --michael  
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 21:58:10 GMT

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