Re: [TED] Uploaded and Attached to this email slightly revised Editors' Working Draft of "RIF Basic Logic Dialect", without wiki-tr diagnostics, Sept 21, 2007, for F2F7

Editorial level comments.

** Section 1

1. Suggest inserting "latter" in
   "These features make RIF a Web language."
frames are not about making RIF a web language.

**S ection 2.1.1.1

2. In
"Constant symbols that belong to this symbol space have special concrete 
syntax, and semantic structures will interpret them in a special way." 
the reference to "this" is ambiguous. I'm not even sure you mean this 
about rif:iri and rif:local.

** Section 2.1.2

3. When introducing the "value"^^label syntax state clearly that this is 
the presentation syntax and not relevant to the XML syntax.

4. The XML syntax for typed constants is now out of place - the XML 
syntax has not been introduced at that point.

5. State the namespace URIs for xsd and rif.
Also s/prefix for the RIF language/prefix for the RIF namespace/

6. The descriptions of the short form notations for xsd:long and 
xsd:decimal are rather informal. If the presentation syntax is intended 
for use outside illustrative examples then a more precise specification 
would be required.

7. The lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral is not "all XML documents ...", 
just refer to the RDF Concepts document and drop that paraphrasing.

8. It might be appropriate to define a short form presentation syntax 
for rif:iri which supports curies. If the point of the presentation 
syntax is to support readable examples and the point of RIF is to be a 
web language then we want the IRIs to be the common case and want those 
to be readable.

9. s/The domain of/The value space of/

10. In describing rif:local the phrase "They are not visible outside" 
doesn't define the term "outside". See non-editorial comment 2.

** Section 2.1.3

11. Example 2 fails to wrap '..' round all the rif:local symbols in the 
presentation syntax. This problem extends to all later examples.

** Section 2.1.3.1

12. I'm not clear on the value of giving an informal example instance 
XML document for signature specifications here. Should decide to either 
formally define the XML syntax for signatures or drop the example.

** Section 2.1.4

13. The notation Const\sub{type} is not defined (though it is pretty 
obvious).

14. The last paragraph
"Note that while "abc"^^xsd:string ≠ "abcd"^^xsd:string is a RIF 
tautology..."
Repeats information already given earlier and should be dropped.

** 2.2.1.3

15. Example 1 -> Example 3 .

16. Example 2 -> Example 4 .

17. In example 2 - s/rif:long/xsd:long/

** 4.1

18. I think the OWL discussion should be moved to after the RDF 
discussion since it refers to that.

19. The OWL section is so preliminary we might want to drop it for this 
working draft

** Section 4.2.2

20. s/squared/where/

** Section 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2
21. The table formatting seems to have going wrong.

** Section 4.2.3.6

22. The ruleset text does not wrap making the printed version of the 
document unreadable.

** Section 5

23. This section on the abstract syntax is incomplete and out of sync.

** Section 6

The Section "Using sorts ..." seems like a left over from an earlier 
draft and is probably best deleted.
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 17:07:46 UTC