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

Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - part2

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:33:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4868EECD.5010307@inf.unibz.it>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

>> My point was that the thing in the BLD presentation syntax is called 
>> "document" and not "RIF-BLD-document" or "RIF document".
> I see. Actually, it is called "document formula" or "RIF-BLD document formula".

You are right.  I forgot the "formula" part.

But, concerning "RIF-BLD document formula": it is used in some places 
(even "RIF-BLD document" is used), but there is no definition.
I would suggest to include this definition where "document formula" is 
defined (i.e., section 2.4), or even add an additional section.
on that note, when strictly reading the definitions, annotations do not 
seem to be part of document formulas.  So, I would recommend to define 
documents after defining annotations, and taking the annotations into 
account in the definition.
Actually, in order to allow annotations in front of arbitrary sub 
formulas, annotations should be included in the definition of a formula. 
  For example, one bullet in the Definition (Well-formed formula) could be:
* ''Annotated formula'': If psi is a well-formed formula, then (* id phi 
*) psi  also a well-formed formula.

Thus, Jos

> 	--michael  

Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
   - Isaac Asimov
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:32:51 UTC

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