comments on IR/I (readability/bug?) in MT spec

Comments from Ivan Herman in IRC. I've forgotten details of MT to
be able to answer this myself, but there may at least be a readability /
presentation issue here.

Dan

<ivan> Hi Dan. I am reading the RDF Model document (...) and I found an
irritating editorial problem (I think it is editorial).
<ivan> On the one hand it defines the interpretation with (among others)
defining the IS function. So far so good.
<ivan> However, starting around section 3.1, my impression is that it uses
'I' instead of 'IS' all the time. For example, it says 'I(rdf:type)',
whereas, unless I misunderstand something, this should be 'IS(rdf:type)'.
This is not only at one place.
<ivan> Do I grossly misunderstand something?
<ivan> (I guess my mathematical subconscious mind which resurfaces...)
<danbri> I'm not sure, without studying it. My mathematical subconscious
has never surfaced.
...
<danbri> Can you mail me something, or is the irc above ok?
<ivan> yep, the IRC is o.k.
<ivan> Thx