BLD review

In RIF-BLD I like the dual approach: instantiation of FLD,
and self-contained definition. I think it should be kept that way.
Examples in the presentation syntax are difficult to read
(see below for a possible improvement).


2.0.1. The syntax

* Supported formulas

* RIF-BLD condition
Here I would be explicit that a condition can be used to form queries.
I don't see any need to form another working group which will
specify RIF queries :-)

* RIF-BLD rule
I would explicitely state that equality can appear in the head
as well.

2.0.5. Formulas

I would move (and reformulate) the statement: "Formulas using
the above definitions are RIF-BLD conditions" in front of the
four items.

2.0.6. EBNF Grammar

I would omit rif:local (and make it default) in the presentation
syntax. This would make the examples much more readable.

2.0.7. XML serialization

"Positional information is optionally exploited only for the
arg role elements"
I guess this is not optional, but required for the positional terms.
Shouldn't we also allow optional positional information to
be exploited by the formula and rule roles?
Otherwise I don't see how can one ensure roundtripping
of Prolog rules.

2.0.9. Subdialects of RIF-BLD

I wonder if it were not useful to also define 'syntactic' equality
(eg, unification) which can be used only in rule conditions, and
not in the heads? This would make more sense in Core.

The following are typographic errors:

1. Overview

3rd par: FIF-BLD -> RIF-BLD

5th par: delete URL in from of RIF Framework...

2.0.1. The syntax

* Assignement of signatures
The frame signature, change font in ->{(term term term) =>

* Supported type sof terms
Compared to RIF-FLD...
1st item, last sentence:
a variable ... -> a variable cannot range over atomic formulas

2nd item:
Likewise, a symol -> symbol

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 12:14:07 UTC