- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:47:01 -0400
- To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Stella, I put in the changes that you suggested except two or three. > "Symbol spaces": > The "RIF-RDF Compatibility" section refers to a rif:text type > that is not included here This has not been finalized yet. > 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 I am confused here or maybe I did not find the exact place you are referring to. Obj(...) is defined recursively in the preceding paragraph. > 3.1.2.1 > --------- > 2nd para: > "partial order" --> 'total order" (for the BLD) ? I did not change this to be consistent with the general definition, but this whole thing will be reworked when we split this document into the "framework" document and the basic dialect. > 4.2 > ----- I did not do changes here because this is Jos' domain. > General: > ------------ > > For the future larger restructuring, maybe consider presenting the > complete condition language all together, rather than basic first and then > extending for slotted. I do not object to this. Some people were arguing that the current way is better for didactic reasons, but I am not sure of that, due to the repetitions. > 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" The naming is still in flux. At a previous telecon we were arguing that it is better to call this "Basic RIF logic." Also, it is awkward to always call it "Basic RIF logic language" and such; hence "basic language" and the like. If we had a catchy acronym like RIF<sup>BL</sup> then it would be easier to refer to this thing consistently. regards --michael > Stella
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 00:47:17 UTC