[BLD] Comments on BLD ED frozen Oct 19

Michael, Harold,

Some final (editorial) comments :

- Use or RIF-BLD: there are still some RIF BLD (without the hyphen), 
e.g. second par of section 1;

- Same with RIF-PRD (refered to as both "RIF PRD" and "RIF-PRD");

- sect. 1, but-last par., "symbols that have more than one contextual 
use: e.g. of a constant and of a predicate": shouldn't that be "...as a 
constant and as a predicate"?

- Sometimes, the document makes assertions about RIF, without 
identifying a dialect, e.g. Sect 2.1.1.3, 3rd par., "The set of all 
constant symbols in RIF has a number of predefined subsets", or, more 
arguably: "RIF-compliant implementations must support the following 
symbols spaces" (same section, later). I suggest that, in WD2 at least, 
the unqualified reference to RIF be replaced by RIF-BLD.

- sect. 2.1.1.5, EBNF: linefeed before the | at the end of the Exists 
production

- sect. 2.1.1.5, 1st par. after the EBNF, "The exists formula, where 
Var+ stands for the list of free variables in CONDITION...": replace 
with "...where Var+ stands for a list of variables that are free in 
CONDITION..."; [This comment was already in my previous batch, but it 
seems that slipped through]

- next sentence: "In RIF BLD, it is the only kind of quantified formula 
but in other dialects..." must be modified, e.g. "...the only kind of 
quantified formula that is allowed in a condition, but..." [This comment 
was already in my previous batch, but it seems that slipped through]

- same sect., 3rd par. after the EBNF, "RIF-BLD presentation syntax does 
not commit to any particular vocabulary for the name of variables": 
isn't that contradictory with the production: Var::= '?' VARNAME? I 
suggest remove the '?' in the production;

- sect. 2.2: per resolution passed Aug. 28, that section should be 
"suitably labelled as "under discussion" with rationale for/against". We 
can maybe leave the "rationale" part if we do not have them ready; but 
we cannot leave the labelling part;

- sect. 2.2, 1st par., "Such a function maps an object id..." -> 
"...object identifier...";

- sect. 2.2.1.2, structural diagram missing (I have drafted one; 
however, I had to introduce several classes - SLOTFILLER, OBJECTREF, 
Member, Subclass - to keep the syntax properly stripped and aligned with 
the XML syntax; and, thus, it does not correspond strictly to the EBNF 
anymore)

- sect. 2.2.2.1, "If `f`is a term, then `obj(f) = f`": shouldn't that be 
"If `f`is a `TERM`, then `obj(f) = f`"?

- sect.2.2.2.2, definition of I,,slot,,: why is I,,slot,, defined as "a 
function from domain D to truth-valued functions..." and not, like the 
other mappings, as "a function from `const` to..."?

- sect. 3.1.1.1., 1st par., "All bound variables that occur in the rule 
are implicitly or explicitly universally quantified...": shouldn't that 
be "All free variables..."?

- same sentence: As decided and as specified in other places in the doc 
(e.g. sect. 3.1.1.2), all variables must be explicitly quantified -> 
"All free variables that occur in the rule are explicitly universally 
quantified"; or did I miss something?

- sect. 6, end notes: I suggest removing the end note on "intented 
models for rule sets", that is really out of BLD scope.

That'all (and that's not much)...

Christian

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 13:11:09 UTC