Re: [RIF] comments on BLD, April 10 version

Stella,
Thank you for your thorough review!
I put in all the fixes that you required except for a couple, see below.


	regards
	  --michael  


> General:
> -------------
>     The snapshot version has problems with list numbering and lettering on 
> some lists. 
>     (missing items in the sequence).

Sandro, this seems to be a problem with the converter. It does not quite
understand HTML lists. I think the HTML is valid. At least, Wiki does not
have problems with it.

>      Any comments below on list items use the numbering in the wiki 
> version.
> 
> 
> 1.0  Overview
> --------------------
> 
>     3rd para:
>        Should this say which specification takes precedence in the 
> unlikely event
>        that they differ? (The OWL semantics document gives two normative 
> specifications
>        of a semantics and says which takes precedence if a conflict should 
> ever arise)

I do not know. I think inconsistencies should be resolved by fixing the spec.
They arise not because one of the specs is more important, but because the
descriptions may have bugs.


> 2.1  Alphabet of RIF-BLD
> ------------------------------------
>     2nd to last para:
>          There's a "?" at the end of the sentence

Sandro, this is the same problem as with other Math symbols in IE. This
particular symbol is the box, but IE does not properly display inclusion,
membership, and other standard HTML symbols. I suspect that this may depend
on the  version of IE and on the OS.

What do we do about browsers that deviate from the standards?

>  2.2 Terms
>  ---------------
> 
>           item 8.
>                if t is a term -->
>                if t is a positional or named argument term 

t can be any term, including frames and variables. External(frame) can be
useful, but External(variable) is probably not. The latter are excluded as
non-well-formed terms.

Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 05:30:43 UTC