editorial comments on BLD draft part I

[I sent non-editorial comments in a separate message]

0) General: whenever a notion is defined, an anchor should be created.
And whenever a notion is mentioned, a cross reference to this anchor
should be included.  This would greatly increase the readability for
anyone reading the documents online.

1- section 1, third paragraph, first sentence: "RIF BLD corresponds to"
-> "RIF BLD semantically corresponds to"
2- section 1, third paragraph: "international resource identifiers"->
"Internationalized Resource Identifiers"
3- section 1, fifth paragraph, second sentence: "and the syntax for
queries" should be removed, because RIF does not define a query language
4- section 1, sixth paragraph, first sentence: "as logical constants, as
names of the predicate, and of function symbols" -> "as logical
constants and as names of predicate and function symbols"
5- section 2, first sentence: "several dialects of RIF" -> "the dialects
of RIF".


6- section 2.1: the first sentence about what the RIF condition is
should be moved to the introduction of section 2
7- section 2.1, second paragraph: the first and second sentence are
redundant with earlier text in the introduction of section 2, and should
thus be removed.
8- section 2.1, third paragraph: "internationalized resource
identifiers" should be capitalized
9- section 2.1, fourth paragraph, first sentence: "formalisms, such" ->
"formalisms such"
10 - section 2.1, fifth paragraph, first sentence: "individual" ->
"individual symbol"
11 - section 2.1, sixth paragraph: this paragraph should explain the
outline of the whole of the remainder of the section (including the
semantics and the datatypes), not just the syntax and the signature.
12 - section 2.1.1, text about the presentation syntax: "This is a
human-oriented syntax, which we use in our the examples." -> "This is a
human-oriented syntax, which we use in our examples, and is not meant
for the actual representation and exchange of RIF rules."
13 - section 2.1.1.1, signatures, first sentence: "finite or countably
infinite" -> "countable"
14 - section 2.1.1.1, well-formed terms and formulas, second sub-bullet
of second bullet: "Each t,,i,, is a well-formed term with signature
sigma,,j,, ... distinct);" => ""Each t,,i,, is a well-formed term which
has a signature sigma,,i,,;"
15 - section 2.1.1.1, paragraph below well formed terms: this example of
XML serialization should be given after the XML serialization has been
introduced.
16 - CURIs are used for the first time in section 2.1.1.1.  They should
probably be explained here, or in some earlier section (rather than
section 2.1.2 where there is currently a placeholder for this definition).

17 - The section "Formal preliminaries" should probably be renamed to
something like "Symbols"
18 - symbol spaces and primitive datatypes should be defined before
defining the abstract and presentation syntaxes, because they are used
in these syntaxes
19 - section 2.1.1.2.1, last sentence: "assume to be" -> "required to
be" (two times)
20 - section 2.1.1.3, first paragraph: it should be mentioned here that
the presentation syntax is used for the specification of the semantics
21 - section 2.1.1.3, fifth paragraph, first sentence: the definition
"TERM* ::= | TERM TERM*" seems redundant
22 - section 2.1.2, third paragraph: "has the following components" ->
"has the following two components"
23 - section 2.1.2, first bullet: the second half of the text seems to
be written in superscript


More to come

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is
thinking with the majority. The second-rate
mind is only happy when it is thinking with
the minority. The first-rate mind is only
happy when it is thinking.
  - AA Milne