W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Action-778 - Review FLD

From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:17:52 -0400
Message-ID: <d64b0f2c0905110817i705bef88nce73c5de0f3e4f65@mail.gmail.com>
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
 My comments are all editorial:

      Says that dialects are required to specialize the framework.

      In some places* it looks like specialization means a restriction on
the framework (and is contrasted to an extension), and in other places** it
looks like extending the framework is considered one way to specialize it.
              *  e.g. last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the overview,
2nd paragraph of section 4, where it says that specialization implies that
every well-formed formula in a dialect will also be a well-formed formula in
              ** e.g. sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1,  where adding new things
is described under the heading "specialization."

                  Also, section 2.1 item #1 says the alphabet can be
restricted, and then section 2.2 says the alphabet can either be restricted
or extended.

  1.0 Overview
      1st sentence:
           Maybe also say how Core and PRD relate to FLD, since they are
both mentioned in the 4th bullet in the syntactic framework section of the

       5th para (Syntactic framework,
            add aggregates and knowledge base reference terms to the list,
to match section 2.4 (and update 'eleven' in the 1st sentence)

            9th bullet:
               terns --> terms

       6th para, 1st sentence:
           RIF-BLD --> RIF-FLD

       6th para, 3rd bullet ("Restriction"):
           Maybe add a brief explanation of how this differs from
signatures, which also impose restrictions on the form of terms and

       last para:
            update to reflect the current status of FLD and the existing

 2.1 Syntax of a RIF Dialect as a Specialization of FLD
       item #3, bulleted list:
           add knowledge base reference terms, to match section 2.4

 2.2 Alphabet   ------------------
       6th bullet: add "Module"  (and a description in the following
      10th bullet:  add "?"

       Definition (Symbol space):
           slightly different from the one in DTB, where there is a 4th
bullet saying each symbol space has a short name

           5th para:
               symspace is an identifier of the symbol space -->
               symspace is the identifier of the symbol space
                   (or change definition to match)

2.4 Terms ---------------
     list item #3:
         ?X(abc, ?W) --> ?X("123"^^xs:integer ?W)

     list item #11:
        external sources, which are not RIF --> external sources that are
not RIF

     Example 1:

         c. the property names aren't in valid syntax

         d. a, c, Head and Tail don't look like valid syntax?

         f.  tern --> term

         g. p and q aren't valid syntax

             neg --> Neg

2.5 Schemas for Externally Defined Terms
    1st para:
        difference --> different

     2nd para
        1st bullet:   id is a  --> loc is a
         2nd bullet: clssification --> classification

     3rd, 4th, 9th paras:
        foo isn't a valid property name - change to "foo" ?
        a --> "a"

     6th para:
        "pred:isTime"^^rif:iri --> pred:isTime

2.6 Signatures  ---------------------
     11th bullet:
          form --> forms

      para before Definition (Coherent signature set):
          should --> must (3 times)  ?

      Definition (Coherent signature set)
          item #1:  represents --> represent

          item #8: say that this is for frames

2.8 Well-formed Terms and Formulas
      Definition (Well-formed formula)
          item #10, 2nd bullet, 4th sub-bullet:
              suggestion: support the form used by RIF-BLD: <IRI> -->
                                support the form <IRI>

          next to last para:
              nagation --> negation

2.9 Annotations in the Presentation Syntax
       1st para:
           RIF formula, which --> RIF formula that

        3rd para:
           The EBNF (and the text afterwards) specfies that the annotation
id is a rif:iri const, and also example 3 below shows it as an rif:iri
const, and the mapping table in section 4.2.2.  Also, doesn't DTB in section
1.2.1 say that rif:ifi constants are globally known when it constrasts them
to rif:local constants and says that a rif:ifi constant must be interpreted
as a reference to one and the same object regardless of the context in which
that constant occurs?

        Example 3, Example 4:
           The Prefix and Import directives need to be updated with the
current syntax (angle brackets)

2.10 EBNF ----------------
       Doesn't included TailedList, which is allowed in the mathematical
english specification of the presentation syntax.

3.3 Primitive Datatypes  ---------------------------------
      fot --> for

 3.4 Semanic Structures  ----------------------------------
      1st list, item #11:
          this item only covers externally defined positional functions (not
positional predicates or named argument terms or frames...)?

      2nd list, item #6:  match up the subscripts (k, n) on either side of
the =

3.5 Annotations and the Formal Semantics
      1st sentence:     constitue --> constitute

3.6 Interpretation of Non-document Formulas
      1st sentence:
            other than a document formula ->
            other than a document formula or a knowledge base reference

3.7 Interpretation of Documents
      1st para:
           imports --> import
           contains --> contain

       Definition (Semantc multi-structures):
            locators of RIF-FLD formulas -->
            locators of RIF-FLD document formulas ?

       next para:
            Ids --> locators (twice)

       2nd to last para: ("The above definitions..."):
           This paragraph has migrated away from the text it originally
followed from. What about moving it to the end of  "Definition (Semantic

 3.8 Intended Semantic Structures
      last para:
          update "intended models" (not defined) to  "intended semantic
multi-structure" ?  Also, section 3.1  talks about intended models.

 4.0 XML Serialization Framework
     2nd definition (Conformant XML doc), 2nd para:
          say under what mapping (re: image)

 4.1 XML for the RIF-FLD language
      3rd para, last sentence
          the section title on the link (Mapping of the RIF-FLD Rule
Language) doesn't match the section title it refers to

      Example 5:
          update the Prefix directives with the current syntax (angle
          note that a rif:iri is also used as an id in an annotation here,
although it says above in section 2.9 that shouldn't be done.

 5.0 Conformance
      1st para:
          compliant syntax --> compliant system ?

      2nd para:
          namespaces --> symbol spaces ?

      Why did conformant producers use to have map a subset of L into RIF
and now they have to map all of L into RIF?

Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 15:18:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:56 UTC