Comments (typos and wording suggestions) on the 9/21 version of BLD document

2.1.
-----
4th para: 
       "all symbols are drawn from the same universal set"  -->
       "all symbols are drawn from two universal sets, one for constants 
and one for variables"
       (because you later say they are disjoint) ?

2.1.1.1
---------
1st para: 
       Remove the universal quantifier, or distinguish between RIF 
Condition language
       and RIF Basic Condition language?

3rd para: (Signatures): 
       "assume" --> "require"  ?

      "is intended to represent" --> "represents"

6th para (Well-formed terms and formulas): 
      The first bullet says that if a constant or variable has the 
signature expression bool
      in its set, then it is a well-formed term with signature bool{}, and 
earlier it says that bool{} 
      represents the context of atomic formulas, so does this mean that a 
constant  (or variable)
      symbol without parens can be an atomic formula? (conflicts with the 
syntax)

9th para: 
       "RIF assumes that there is a special predicate" --> "RIF 
defines..." or "RIF includes..." ?
 
       "Like other predicates, it has a signature, which includes the 
Boolean expression ..."    --> 
       "Like other predicates it has a signature, and its signature 
includes the Boolean expression..." ?
          (because as is it sounds like all predicates have that 
particular expression in their set)

"Symbol spaces": 
        The "RIF-RDF Compatibility" section refers to a  rif:text type 
that is not included here


2.1.1.3
---------
   "variables in the RIF Condition Language can be free and quantified" 
-->
   "variables in the RIF Condition Language can be free or quantified"

   "all variables introduced by quantification should..." --> "all 
variables introduced by quantification must..."  ?


2.1.2
-------
    the "value"^^label  notation is not ideal because this section is 
about distinguishing between the
    lexical form and the values in the value space, but in this 
terminology "value" is used for the lexical
    form. Maybe "literal" instead?

   first bullet::
       The font is messed up near the end, all appearing as a superscript 
of  "value"

       "XML data" --> "XML data type"   (twice)

8th para:
     "and thus it is expected that corresponding names of RIF primitive 
types will be" -->
     "the corresponding names of RIF primitive types are"  ?


2.1.3
-------
1st para:
   "assumes" --> "requires" 


2.2.1.1
---------
2nd bullet:
     "if   kn  is bool" --> "if  k  is bool"


2.2.2.1
---------
1st para:
      "Obj(o)" -->  "o"  ?
 
      "if f is a uniterm then we define unnest(f) = true" --> "if f is a 
term we define unnest(f) = true" ?

      obj(term) is not defined, maybe it's taken as obvious

2.2.2.2
---------
2nd para:
       "ISR and ISR" --> "ISF and ISR"

       "Isub i" --> "Isub"

ISF bullet:
      "predicate" -->  "function uniterm"
 
      "a tuple in a slottted term is a" --> 
      "the arguments for a slotted term are represented as a"   (because 
tuple is ordered) ? ( same for LSR bullet)

      move or copy the "Here we use {...} to denote bags" note from ISR to 
here, since this  bullet comes first.

ISR bullet, Itruth mapping:
      "where P e Const, and Pi and Vali are terms"  --> 
      "where P and Pi  e Const, and Vali is a term"     ?


3.1.1.2
---------
4th para:
     "The clause production generates" --> "The rule production generates" 



3.1.2.1
---------
2nd para:
     "partial order" --> 'total order"  (for the BLD) ? 

4.2
-----
     "It turns out that reasoning" --> "Reasoning" 

     In this section there are a few references to "RIF molecules," but 
the rest of the document calls them frames.
 

4.2.2
-------
    "D-interpretation squared" --> "D-interpretation where"


4.2.2.1
---------
     Consistenly refers to RIF structure vs. RDF interpretation. Is there 
meant to be a distinction
     (between the structure and the interpretation)?

    3rd bullet:
         "power set of" --> "cartesian product" ?

    2nd & 5th conditions:
         The earlier sections of the document use t instead of 1 for true.

   7th & 8th conditions:
         I don't understand why the RIF mapping IC isn't used instead of 
IF ?


4.2.2.2
---------
   1st para:
        "3" --> "4"

        "(simple, RDF, RDFS)" --> "(simple, RDF, RDFS, D)"
 

4.2.3.2
---------
    Mapping column for TRq mapping:
 
    "?xn" --> "xn"

    "tr(S)" --> "S"    ?


4.2.3.3
---------
     "c2" --> "c"
 
      is the TRs function different for each graph?  (the different 
subscripts)

6.1
----
     The end note on "Using sorts to simulate FOL, RDF and other logics" 
is obsolete.

     Note on "Intended models for rule sets":
            "this section: --> "this document"


General:
------------

   For the future larger restructuring, maybe consider presenting the 
complete
   condition language all together,  rather than basic first and then 
extending
   for slotted.

   The BLD is referred to variously as "RIF Basic Logic Dialect,"  "RIF 
basic logic dialect,"
   "RIF logic language,"  "RIF's basic logic language," "Basic RIF logic," 
"basic language"

 

Stella