[BLD] some more commments which I didn't manage to type in yesterday...

attached some comments for Sec 4, which I didn't manage to type in 
yesterday.


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Editiorial Comments:


These comments are based on
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-09-24.html

and might be subsumed by others comments already, apologies if so.


1) Use "data type" or "datatype" consistently

2) "RIF supports XML Schema"
->
 "RIF supports XML Schema Simple Datatypes [add reference to XML Schema Spec]" (check terminollogy with XML Schema Doc)

3) 
"follows the standard textbook conventions for logical syntax"
-->
"follows the standard textbook conventions for logical syntaxes"

4) Change order of itemlist where syntaxes are mentioned:

- Formal Syntax
- Presentation Syntax
- Abstract Syntax
- XML Syntax

-->

- Formal Syntax
- Abstract Syntax
- Presentation Syntax
- XML Syntax

(the abstract syntax is always explained before the Presentation syntax in the text)

5) Use consistent either
"base signature expression"
or 
"basic signature expression"

6) in the examples for well-formed terms there are sometimes greek and sometimes 
latin letters (K) used as signature names (\rho)... I would stick with one consistently.

7) There is a font problem in the examples for 
"h_2{i (i i)=>bool" with the first i

8) "Signatures in the Basic Condition Lagnauge"
-->
 "Signatures in the RIF Basic Logic Dialect Condition Lagnauge" 

9) Correct me if I am wrong: I see no way to distinguish between c and c() in the asn06 nor EBNF.

10)  in the abstract EBNF: what is the rationale of having a slotted attributes for op, arg, side, but not for the (const)name?
There is no production for Const (but should, since op requires a Const and not a TERM)

11) "where TERM* is used as TERM* :== | TERM TERM*"
Do we need to state that, I think this is self-explanatory enough and we can drop that.

12) Whenever a Section is cross-references e.g. "given in Section Primitive Data Types"
we should reference also the Section number, ie. "given in 2.1.2. Symbol Spaces and Primitive Data Types". This occurs several times, but I guess will be  a final edition step.


13) "their free variables carry answer bindings back to the caller"
I suggest to weaken this:
 "their free variables can carry answer bindings back to the caller"

14)  Suggest to replace  "^^label" and "^^TYPENAME" in the EBNF 
by "^^CIRIorIRI" and define "CIRIorIRI", ie. allow either angle bracketted IRIs or 
CIRIs here.

15) "that symbol spaces in RIF include spaces, such as[...]"
-->
"that RIF includes symbol spaces such as[...]"

16) "is not the same as the value space of the XML primitive type anyURI."
"is not the same as the value space of the XML Schema primitive type xsd:anyURI."

17) I don't like the example "abc"^^ade, can't we make "abc"^^ex:ade from it, or do we allow local constants as type labels?

18) in the explanation of s##c
"Informally, this formula states that class s is a member of class c"
--> 
"Informally, this formula states that each member of class s is a member of class c"
or 
"Informally, this formula states that class s is a subclass of class c 
(Note that this doesn't imply OWL or RDFS or other subclass relationships 
in particular related formalisms)."

19) Section 2.2.2

Either replace '/\' by the unicode symbols or use the representation syntax in the example

20) In the Definition of I_Truth for slots, there is some subscripting formatting error with the closing bracket.

21) As for the Bags (multisets) used in the Definition of I_SR, I suggest to use
{{ }}
instead of single curly brackets, to denote multisets.

22) I find it awkward to use xsd:string in the asn. Are primitive XSD types in asn? (Sorry, no network, cannot check.

23) "The mapping to RDF lists is even more direct thant in OWL 1.1[...]"
OWL 1.1 is work in progress, or, respectively not a standard, but a WG just started to work on it. I wouldn't make this statement other than in an editorial note.

Editiorial Comments:

2nd part, those comments which I didn't manage to type in yesterday.

These comments are based on
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-09-24.html
and might be subsumed by others comments already, apologies if so.

Starting off from Section 4

1)
"expected to be included in Recommendation-track deliverable"
-->
"expected to be included in a Recommendation-track deliverable"

2) references to the WIKI, like "as pointed out on the OWL Compatibility page."
should not be in the WD

3) "RDF URI refernces"

We talk a lot about URIs and URI References in the section 4. 
Is it possible to change that to IRIs IRI References? Or at least add a sentence clarifying that RIF uses IRIs and that whenever we talk about URIs here, that carries over to versions of RDF using IRIs?

Likewise, in the section on typed literals, change
 "(s,u)"
to 
 "(s,i)"