- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:28:33 -0400
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Doing a quick reading through the Introduction to BLD, I had the
following comments, some of which are just wording, some some of which
are show-stoppers.
> concepts that are supposed to be shared by all logic-based RIF dialects.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ambiguous wording. Is that normative? I don't think so, so:
"that are intended to be shared by..."
> a lá
The accent is in the wrong place. Please stick to English, though,
like "as in".
> RFC 3987 [ RFC-3987 ]
No need to repeat the phrase. Just as "as in [RFC-3987]".
> These features make RIF-BLD into a Web language.
I don't find this claim useful or even meaningful, and it just kind of
bugs me.
> for the bodies of the rules
Only one corner of the rules community knows or uses the term
"bodies", so please define it. eg 'for the bodies (the "if" parts)
of the rules'.
> the RIF extensibility framework.
FLD is not the RIF extensibility framework.
> for defining RIF dialects.
No, only the logic-based ones.
> All logic-based dialects are required to specialize this framework.
No, not at all. Vendor dialects can do what they wants. Future
dialects from RIF-WG may even do something different, given a good
enough reason. Maybe:
"Other, future logic-based dialects are expected to also be defined
using FLD."
-- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 14:29:37 UTC