Re: [RIF-XMLdata] Updated draft

Here's a review.  I'm just off a transatlantic flight and somewhat jet 
lagged so apologies for any typos or incoherence ...

Dave

** Substantial issues

1. The notion of updating the XML tree of the available document in the 
dynamic environment seems flawed and should be removed. It is only 
specified, and only specifiable, for PRD in any case. Surely rules such 
as the rule given in example 3.2 simply entail additional frame formulae 
(i.e. then go in working memory in PRD). The underlying document, and so 
its node tree in the dynamic context, should not change.

1.b Given this can the whole notion of static and dynamic contexts be 
dropped?

2. The notion of URIs without namespaces in the XDM-name definitions in 
section 4.1 doesn't work as far as I can tell. In RIF a rif:iri always 
corresponds to an absolute URI. It might sometimes be expressed relative 
to a base URI and so require resolution but that is irrelevant here - it 
   is still a full URI not a relative URI and so will never have an 
empty namespace fragment.

3. The notion that other datatypes like strings can be coerced into 
rif:uris is a new one on me and doesn't seemed to be specified here. It 
seems unnecessary and I suggest dropping it.

** more minor issues

o You mention in an editor's note that importing a RDF/OWL graph will be 
considered in a future draft. That sounds worrying. What do you mean? 
This should removed entirely for now. I don't want to see a working 
draft suggest there is a different way to combine RIF and RDF documents 
and so confuse things even further.

o In Section 3, "Definition (Available collections)" you reference "that 
string" without explaining what it is. Is that the URI of an imported 
document? If so then say so.

o The addition of an RDB to XML schema mapping complicates the document. 
Is it necessary? Could this document not simply focus on the XML mapping 
and leave RDB->XML mapping to others?

o In Example 3.2 the XML serialization of the RDB contains "en" and "fr" 
xml:lang codes but there is no indication of where these codes come 
from. This serialization is then used later on. I prefer to drop the RDB 
altogether in which case this serialization becomes standalone. If you 
keep the RDB notion then explain where the lang tags come from.

o Also in Example 3.2 the first sentence following the rule example is 
wrong. The rule does not say what you say it says. It says that Customer 
instances will have *an* Id matching its Account number. In the case 
where a Customer had an Account number 333 and an Id 222 the rule would 
add Id 333 leaving it with two Ids, it would not equate 222 and 333.

o In section 4.1 you could have prefixes defined in the cases where the 
namespace URI matches a prefix binding declared in the RIF document. I 
don't know that would have any value.

o Example 4.6, bullet 2. I don't think this holds in the schemaless case 
because the 111 is not an xsd:integer in that case. I don't agree with 
the associated editor's note. How can you possibly change the definition 
of frames to allow strings to match integers?

o Example 3.6, bullet 4. The type of "en" is not xml:lang, that is not a 
type. Perhaps you mean xs:language but in any case you might just as 
well use xs:string.

o Example 4.7. The variable names don't match up. Perhaps you mean:
... ?v["letterBody"->?y] will be true if and only if ?y is ...

** editorial

* Section 1

s/Followingly, this/This/
s/possible, the corresponding XML schemas/where available the 
corresponding XML schemas,/

* Section 3

Last bullet of example 3.1 is odd, what is "A model that is intended for 
a RIF-BLD document"? Suggest just deleting that bullet.

First sentence of first para after definition of available documents in 
a dynamic context ("If a dynamically associated ...") repeats 
information already given a couple times - drop it.

I can't parse the second sentence "If the RIF document does not contains 
an Import directive". Rephrase.

s/with a the location/with the location/
s/There are no constraint/There are no constraints/
s/formulascontained/formulas contained/

In example 3 why is one version of the import in presentation syntax and 
one in XML syntax? Change first to XML syntax for consistency.

* Section 4.1.1

s/attribut nodes/attribute nodes/

* Section 4.1.2

s/URI in slot's XDM-Name/URI in class's XDM-Name/

* Section 4.1.3

s/available documents (that is/available documents, that is/

s/interpretation of class identifiers/interpretation of slot identifiers/

s/on attrbute/on attribute/

* Section 4.2.4

s/false in th/false in the/

Example 4.6, bullet 4 has a broken <tt/> tag.

Example 4.7,  s/see [Section 6.6 Element Nodes/see [Section 6.2 Element 
Nodes/

Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Gary, Dave,
> 
> I updated again the draft: added examples, covering the schema-less 
> case, frames, and general XML (mixed-content). I think that I am done re 
> examples.
> 
> I also corrected an incorrectness in the interpretation of frames.
> 
> The main point that remains to be done is the handling of ID and IDREFs. 
> And add in the intro some explanation about why this does not require an 
> implementation of the XDM.
> 
> And take all your nasty comments into account, of course :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> ILOG, an IBM Company
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
> Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
> 
> 
> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
> Compagnie IBM France
> Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
> Courbevoie
> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
> Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 €
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
>

Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 01:02:28 UTC