- From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:51:28 -0400
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF7FB855D1.C0E91768-ON8525736E.005F48B0-8525736E.00621934@us.ibm.com>
Hi Michael, Harold and Jos,
I separated comments into two categories, one for typos/ things I thought
could be more clear, and another for
phrasing suggestions.
Stella
Proofreading comments:
-----------------------------------
Abstract
------------
Need to remove the references to the abstract syntax.
2.1
----
4rd para:
does not draw sharp boundary -->
does not draw a sharp boundary ( or, "does not
distinguish" ?)
denote individuals from symbols --> denote individuals and the
symbols
preficate --> predicate
5th para, last sentence:
so that symbols could be polymorphic, polyadic, and be allowed to
occur in several different contexts (for example, both as individuals and
as predicates) -->
so that symbols could be polymorphic (i.e. be allowed to occur in
several different contexts) and polyadic (i.e take a varying number of
arguments) ?
2.1.1.1
---------
1st para:
Exists, auxiliary symbols like (,), and so on. -->
Exists, and auxiliary symbols such as "(" and ")".
1st bullet under definition of coherent signatures:
represent --> represents
3rd bullet under definition of coherent signatures:
says that if one signature name is less than another signature
name, then that signature's
expression set is a subset of the other's. Is it supposed to be
the other way around --
that if one expression set is a subset of another, then that
signature's name is defined
to be less than the other's?
para "Well-formed terms and fomulas"
each constant and formed symbol is associated --> ?
signatures in coherence --> signatures in coherent
3rd para after "Examples":
in the above. --> in the above example.
para "Signatures in the condition language of rifBLD:
2nd bullet:
For every integer arity n >= 0 -- >
For every integer n >= 0 ?
para after "Signatures in the condition language of rifBLD":
Is that true that the only requirement for a BLD uniterm or
atomic formula to be
well-formed is that they contain no symbols that are used
in more than one context?
para before "Symbols spaces" para:
We expect that most dialect -->
We expect that most dialects
just before the bulleted list of xml data types:
explaned --> explained
xsd:dateTime bullet
new paragraph between this and the following sentence?
rdf:XMLLiteral bullet:
This type of constant symbols represents -->
This type of constant symbol represents
rif:text bullet:
This kind of constants represent -->
This type of constant represents
two sentences berore "LITERAL^^SYMSPACE" (beginning with "The
constant symbols")
should atomic be in the list of signatures (allowed by RIF
BLD)?
also, the first part of the sentence refers to term{}
instead of term (above said just names would be used)
2.1.1.2
---------
2nd to last para before 2.1.1.3 (beginning with "Free variables
arise")
I find the first two sentences confusing. The first sentence
says that
free variables arise because condition can occur in an if
part of a rule,
but the following example shows free variables that are in a
condition
that is not in the if part of a rule. In the second sentence,
I'm not sure
what "this" refers to (in "when this happens").
2.1.2
-------
5th para:
to var to --> var to
9th para: (beginning "Some symbol spaces")
does rif:text belong in that list? (symbol spaces that are not
data types)
last para:
four mapping ---> four mappings
2.2
----
2nd para:
a new kind of formulas -->
a new kind of formula
or
new kinds of formulas
2.2.1.1
---------
1st para:
"The most important additions are...." (aren't those the
only additions?)
para just before "Extended signatures for rifBLD:
using logical connectives And, Or, the quantifier Exists, etc
. -->
using the logical connectives And and Or, and the quantifier
Exists.
para "Extended signatures for rifBLD:
2nd bullet ("the terms that are allowed...")
is the first sub bullet necessary (doesn't the 2nd
alone give the same restriction)?
2.2.1.2
---------
need to add the UML diagram.
2.2.1.4
---------
The wording of this section heading is different from 2.1.1.4 and
3.1.1.4.
2.2.2
-------
1st para:
in the value position of an attribute -->
in the value position of a slot (because
it's called slot everywhere else)?
2nd para:
the semantic definitions does not change -->
the semantic definition does not change
2.2.2.2
---------
1st sub bullet of ISF & ISR bullets
Each pair <s,v> --> Each argument <s,v>
(so that
each argument is a pair instead of a value
rather than
each pair is a pair instead of a value)
2nd sub bullet of ISF and ISR bullets
The argument to ... is -->
The arguments to... are
2.3
----
Is this section to be updated or removed for WD2?
Horn Rules section, semantics subsection
--------------------------------------------------------------
for the last few definitions (model of a rule set, and entailing a
condition), is it supposed
to say "iff" instead of "if" ?
4.1
----
1st two *** comments: (in case they stay in the published version)
The first comment can be removed since it is already said in the
paragraph above.
second comment: "ensuing threats" --> "ensuing threads" :-)
4.1.1
-------
1st para:
andtyped --> and typed
last line of "***" comment beginning "Because of the difference in
Interpretation"
string --> int
4.1.2.2
---------
7th para:
change "[RDF-Semantics]" to the appropriate link?
8th para:
formatting problem with D^RIF^ (when it occurs in a link)
4.1.3.2
---------
1st para:
as RIF statements and graphs as sets of RIF statements. -->
as RIF statements.
3rd para:
a formula with variables R -->
a formula R with variables
table, 3rd row, 3rd column
tr(?x1) --> tr(x1)
tr(?xn) --> tr(xn)
tr(S): there is no defintion for (plain) tr of a graph S.
4.1.3.5 - 4.1.3.8
---------------------
The theorems in these 4 sections need to be updated to use the TRr
notation instead
the TRs-subscript notation.
4.1.3.6
---------
table, 7th forall
one y (first slot name) and one x (third slot name) are
missing the "?"
4.1.3.7
---------
formatting of D^RIF^ in the heading
Appendix: specification
----------------------------------
The UML diagram needs to be updated, and could be made more readable
Wording suggestions:
--------------------------------
1.0
----
3rd para:
with equality (and with a standard first-order semantics) -->
with equality and with a standard first-order semantics.
These latter features --> The last two features
4th para:
Eventually, it is hoped --> We envision
6th para:
of a constant and of a predicate --> as a constant and as a
predicate
2.1
----
In sections 2.1 and 2.2 in general, signatures aren't referred to in a
consistent style.
When signatures are introduced, it says they will be referred to by
name - e.g "term",
but in the following sections they are sometimes referred to as e.g.
"term{}" and
sometimes just by name..
4rd para:
Instead, all constant --> Instead, all individual
5th para:
rifBLD carefully selects signatures for the symbols -->
rifBLD selects signatures for the symbols
2.1.1.1
---------
2nd para:
constant symbols that represent individuals, predicates and
function symbols -->
constant symbols that represent individuals, predicates and
functions.
position of predicates and function symbols -->
position of predicate and function symbols
para "Well-formed terms and fomulas"
Signatures help control --> Signatures control
1st sub-bullet under second bullet:
term that has a signature, which -->
term with a signature that
para after "Examples", last sentence:
since then p (a) would not be well-formed (in this case, p
would have no arrow expression, which allows p to take just one argument)
-->
because p(a) would not be well-formed (since p has no arrow
expression that allows p to take just one argument)
para "Signatures in the condition language of rifBLD:
1st bullet:
is intended to represent contexts --> represents the
context
2nd bullet:
either an individual, a predicate of one particular
arity, a builtin of one particular arity, or a function symbol of one
particular arity -->
either an individual, a predicate of one particular
arity, a builtin of one particular arity, or a function of one particular
arity -->
4th bullet:
it cannot compare predicate names or function symbols
-->
it cannot compare predicate symbols or function
symbols -->
bulleted list "Symbols spaces"
rif:iri bullet:
A rif:iri constant is supposed to be interpreted as
-->
A rif:iri constant should be interpreted as (or
must?)
rif:local bullet:
locally in their respective rule sets -->
locally in the rule set in which they are defined.
para "Symbols with undefined symbol spaces"
appropriate some of the symbol spaces, which -->
appropriate some of the symbol spaces that -->
2.1.1.4
---------
1st sentence:
is given by a table as follows -->
is given in the following table
2.1.2
-------
3rd and 4th paras (sentences):
combine these into one paragraph.
11th para:
The value space of a data type should not be confused with -->
The value space of a data type is distinct from
2.2.1.1
---------
2nd para, 1st bullet:
their order is considered to be immaterial -->
their order is immaterial
3rd para, 1st bullet:
is assumed to be immaterial -->
is immaterial
is assumed to yield the same expression -->
yields the same expression
4th para:
their order is considered immaterial -->
their order is immaterial
para "Atomic formulas and general condition formulas":
atomic well-formed formula -->
well-formed atomic formula (2 times) (to be
consistent with rest of doc)
2.2.1.4
---------
1st para:
is given by a table, below, -->
is given in the table below
4.0
----
General: change all occurences of "an RIF" to "a RIF"
4.1
----
para "Four semantics are defined":
RDF, with the sense that D entailment -->
RDF. D entailment
Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 17:52:21 UTC