issues with BLD0921 (part 1 of n)

- The first two paragraphs of the Overview say several things that I
  don't think are true.  They can probably just be dropped.  We really
  don't know how dialects fit together, not all dialects will extend BLD
  (I assume that line is left over from when it was Core), and I'm
  pretty sure that dialects (like BLD) don't have "a syntax" but
  actually have multiple syntaxes.

- The I in IRI stands for "Internationalized" not "International"
  (thoughout the document).  This should be a reference to RFC 3987.  At
  some point, we'll need to figure out a format for references in the
  Wiki.  Maybe a Wiki link to a page with reference details, like
  ["Ref/IRI"], and wiki-tr will build the appropriate bibliography?   

- "The central part of RIF is its Condition Language" bugs me a little.

- "but dialects that extend the BLD can and will support polymorthic
  symbols"   Let's drop that "and will" -- we can't promise anything.

- In the overview and later, I think "Presentation Syntax" was the
  consensus term for the human-readable concrete syntax.   I'd like to
  see that term used more in this document.   The text as is suggests
  the XML syntax is not a concrete one.   It should be suggesting we
  have two concrete syntaxes, the Presenation Syntax and the XML Syntax.

- In 2.1, and elsewhere, there are editorial comments like "In a later
  draft, positive RIF conditions..."   Those should be set aside from
  the text that's supposed to stay in the draft -- maybe using a color,
  or just "EDITOR'S NOTE:" at the start of the paragraph.

- The explanation of signatures reads well, but it's still very, very
  challenging.  Maybe it can at least include reference to works that
  will help people understand it?  Maybe even in this pre-split draft we
  can indicate which sections of the signatures discussion need to be
  understood by people implementing BLD translators?  One of the parts
  that's really hard for me is the distinction between signature names,
  signatures, and signature expressions.  I can't really keep them
  straight.    The actual examples do make sense to me -- maybe if one
  of them were worked through in more detail, showing the roles of the
  signatures, signature names, and signature expressions?   Or maybe
  some of those distinctions can go away?

- The only reference I've been able to find for "fully striped" is
  "Normal Form Conventions for XML Representations of Structured Data",
  where it's called "Alternating Normal Form", but it's still a useful
  reference.  http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/normalForms.html

- This is about naming conventions, not BLD0921, but since it's in this
  part of the text, I'll say here that the sentence :
     'The 'Exists' formula is an "existential formula", which in
     Horn-like conditions is the only quantified formula in in later
     conditions may be complimented with the "universal formula"'
  is one of those which, as an object-oriented designer, says to me very
  strongly that the class should then be called 'ExistentialFormula' or
  'Existential'.   (If you explain a term by saying it is something
  else, that's usually a sign that you should just use the 'something
  else' as the term.)

- Why require one or more variables in an Exists?  In particular, the
  Horn syntax requires a Forall/Universal, so it must allow zero
  variables.   I think Exists should allow zero variables.

- Language like "is assumed to be", in "The length of the list of Var of
  the declare property (role) of the Exists class is assumed to be 1 or
  more" is, I think, quite confusing for a specification.  I think "must
  be" is what we want.

- In 2.1.3 (and other places), we shouldn't have text like "The
  following is a possible XML-serializing mapping...".  The main text
  should use crisp normative language about what must be done, and
  material that says how "drafty" the text is should be in an EDITOR'S
  NOTE about it, or something.  For example

        EDITOR'S NOTE: The XML syntax for BLD presented here is just one
        proposal the Working Group is considering, and may be referred
        to as "XML Syntax Strawman 1".  It is presented here to get
        feedback on this strawman and to give readers an idea for the
        kind of information will be presented in this section.

  I say that as an example, since hopefully in the next draft the XML
  syntax will actually have been agreed upon.

That's it, so far.

     -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 12:49:30 UTC