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

Thanks Dave. I made those changes except to Sec 4 (which is Jos' domain)
and Sec 5, which we have to decide what to do there.


	--michael  

> 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 20:15:15 UTC