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

comments on DTB, 6/19 version

From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:59:13 -0400
To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF747806A7.CD4EFC91-ON8525746D.006AA451-8525746D.006DCAD5@us.ibm.com>
General:
        How about renaming the first section to Introduction or Overview, 
(keeping
        the current content) and adding some introductory description 
about  how 
        this document fits with the others (as described in the abstract), 
intended
        audience, how it should be updated when new dialects are defined, 
and
        general topics such as that rule sets can use additional symbol 
spaces
        that are not included in this document...


Missing items and obsolete sections: 

       Section 2.1
               EBNF:     LANGTAG is not used, rif:text types are not 
covered
 
       Sections 4.1 and 4.2: 
               add  guard and negative guard predicates for xsd:date

       Section 4.3
      add a cast function for xsd:date

       Section 4.3.6
    I think the motivating example in the 1st paragraph is not complete:
          this would immediately result in 
           -->
          and then if a ruleset asserted  "http://example.org/iriA

"^^rif:iri =
          "http://example.org/iriB"^^rif:iri,  this would result in

       Section 4.4.2
     add pred:numeric-not-equal

       Sections 4.6.1 & 4.6.2
     remove the predicates and functions related to xsd:duration type?

       Document:
            To match the list of data types in section 2.2, a number of 
references to
             xsd:long throughout the document need to be updated to 
xsd:double

             the abstract says the types and built-ins are a catalog and 
each 
             dialect can require a subset, but the text in sections 2.1 
and 2.2 says
             that all dialects must support all the symbol spaces/data 
types.
 


Typos & wording suggestions:

Section 1
----------------
     1st sentence:
          make "RIF's presenation syntax" a link


2.1. Constants and Symbol Spaces
-----------------------------------------------------
     1st para, last sentence:
            identified by IRI --> identified by <identifier>

     Definition (Symbol space):
            FLD also has a third bullet saying that two symbol spaces 
cannot share
            the same identifier

     Next para:
              However, to simplify  -->  <new para> For convenience, 
                  ("However" doesn't seem like an appropriate link between 
the 2 sentences)

      Next para: 
            2nd sentence:
                   Maybe expand on the statement about rulesets being able 
to use
                   additional symbol spaces.

     bulleted list:
            xsd:decimal bullet: 
                   corresponds --> correspond

     2 duration bullets:
           2nd bullet:
                xsd:dayTimeDuration --> xsd:yearMonthDuration 

     rif:local
           occurrences of the same rif:local constant in the same document 
must refer to the
           same object.
                    does FLD require this? So from the long ago discussion 
about DS,
                    ONDS, OS and OSR, FLD does not allow any dialect to 
have ONDS?

      para before EBNF:
           I think it reads better reworded as:
                 In order to make rules written in RIF's presentation 
syntax more readable, 
                the syntax includes shortcut notations for constants in 
several of the 
                symbol spaces.  RIF's presentation syntax for constants is 
defined by 
                the following EBNF.
 
      UNICODESTRING:
            escpape --> escape

      last para before section 2.2:
            Other than the first sentence, the rest of the text seems out 
of place here -
            or it should have a different lead in, other than "For 
instance" 


2.2. Data Types
-----------------------
     3rd para:
             DTS always includes the data types supported by that dialect 
-->
             DTS always includes the data types required by that dialect


3.1 Syntax of Built-ins
-------------------------------
      1st para:
             does BLD need to be called out here, (since this is supposed 
to 
             be common to all dialects?

      2nd para:
             defined in in --> defined in

             For RIF's  normative syntax, see XML Serialization Syntax for 
RIF-BLD -->
             For RIF's normative syntax,  see XML Serialization Syntax for 
RIF-FLD         ?

      3rd para:
            both the well-formed externally defined terms and their syntax 
-->
            both the syntax and semantics of exernally defined terms

            schemas have especially simple form -->
            schemas have an especially simple form


3.2 Semantics of  Built-ins
-------------------------------------
      1st para:
         does BLD need to be called out here,  since this is supposed
         to be common to all dialects?


4 List of Supported Built-in Predicates and Functions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     How about changing the section heading to:  "RIF Built-in Predicates 
and Functions"?
 
     list item 5 (intended domains):
           I think the last 2 sentences of first paragraph read better 
reworded as:
                 This means that if one or more of the arguments is not in 
its intended domain, the 
                  value of  Iexternal()(a1 ... an)  can vary from one 
semantic structure to another. Similarly, 
             Itruth  Iexternal()(a1 ... an) can be t in some 
interpretations and f in others when an argument
                 is not in the intended domain.


4.1   (same comments apply to section 4.2 )
---------------------------------------------------------------
   1st para:
       RIF requires guard predicates for all its supported data types -->
       RIF requires guard predicates for all its data types

        Also, section 4.2 uses 'has' where this sentence says 'requires' 
        and at the end of section 4.2 it says that  RIF does *not* require 
guards 
        for all data types.

   1st bullet:
       for one of the RIF supported data types -->
       for one of the RIF data types

       where applicable without creating ambiguities -->
       where applicable as long as they don't create ambiguities


4.3 Cast Functions...
------------------------------ 
       for all its supported data types -->
       for all of the data types 


4.3.3  rdf:XMLLiteral
------------------------------
      Mappings bullet:
               Mappings --> Mapping
               givne --> given


4.3.4  rif:text
----------------
      Mapping bullet:
                s --> s1
 
4.3.5  rif:iri
----------------
      "The following equalities hold in every RIF interpretation for each 
unicode string a:"
                --> for each string, or only for those that are in a 
certain format?

      "a"^^xsd:iri  -->  "a"^^rif:iri

      there are a few <tt> tags in the last paragraph


4.3.6  pred:iri-to-string
--------------------------------
     1st para:
           the link to the rif:iri cast function needs to be fixed up

     2nd para: 
         " (see example below)" -- can't find the example below

     Schema bullet:
          (?arg1, ?arg1) --> (?arg1, ?arg2)

     Intended domain bullet:
          aregument --> argument

     Mapping bullet:
          (?arg1, ?arg1) --> (?arg1, ?arg2)

          is en --> is in

          delete the last sentence of the 1st paragraph (looks leftover 
from copy/paste)


4.4.1 Numeric Functions
-----------------------------------
     which functions does the sentence between sections 4.4.1.1 and 
4.4.1.2 apply to?
     should it be moved to the beginning, or qualified?

4.4.1.4  func:numeric-divide
----------------------------------------
     Mapping bullet:
           Delete the first sentence (leftover copy/paste)

           I'm not sure "backs up the "div" operator" is self-explanatory 
enough for a reader
           of this  document?   (same comment for next few sections)

4.4.2
-------
     which predicates does the sentence between sections 4.4.2.1 and 
4.4.2.2 apply to?
      it should be qualified and possibily moved to the beginning?

4.5 Functions and Predicates on Strings
----------------------------------------------------------
     2nd para:
          we equally allow simply to write --> we allow the equivalent 
forms

          The comment about not lifting restrictions made in BLD  seems 
like
           it would be better placed in the BLD document, since DTB is 
supposed
           to be general to all dialects.


4.5.1.2  func:concat
----------------------------
      (?arg1; func:concat1(1))  -->  (?arg1; func:concat1(?arg1))


4.5.1.3  func:string-join
--------------------------------
      schema bullet
             two of them are named join2
 
4.5.2.4
---------
      pred:matchess --> pred:matches


6 Appendix
-----------------
   RIF-BLD --> RIF-DTB

   "edited copy" makes you wonder how it's different and why, but it's 
just a slight
    non-content difference at the end. How about:
         For the convenience of the reader who may not be familiar with 
RIF-FLD,
         this appendix reproduces the definition of  <schemas for 
externally defined terms>
         from that document.


-Stella
 
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 19:59:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT