Comments on 2/19 version of RIF-FLD

Hi All,

(the links to the snapshots on the reading page for F2F9 are mislabeled)


Abstract:
-------------
     It says that RIF dialects are expected to specialize the framework. 
     Is it optional, recommended or required that logic-based dialects
     be defined by specializing this framework?

     2nd sentence:  (wording suggestion) 
           "The framework describes the syntax and semantics..." -->
           "The framework describes mechanisms for specifying the syntax 
and 
             model-theoretic semantics..."


1.0 Overview
-----------------
     1st bullet, last 2 sentences:  (wording suggestions)
            "RIF" -->  "the presentation syntax" 

            "Instead, being an interchange format, RIF dialects use XML as 
their concrete syntax" -->
            "Since RIF is an interchange format, it uses XML as its 
concrete syntax."
 
     4th para: 
             "some newly developed" --> "future" 

     5th para ("Syntactic framework")
        Says there are 3 main classes of RIF terms. Should classification
        and equality terms be included here too?

     "Semantic framework" para:
         2nd bullet: (Datatypes)
              It's not clear (to me) what "special semantics" means. (do 
the
              other symbol spaces have no semantics or semantics that
              aren't special?)

2.0.1
-------
    2nd bullet:
        "to each constant symbol" --> "to each constant and variable 
symbol" 

    4th bullet: 
         "Symbols spaces determine the "shapes" of the symbols that are 
allowed by the syntax of the dialect" -->
         "The associated lexical spaces determine the syntax of the 
symbols allowed in the dialect"  (wording suggestion)

    5th bullet: 
        "allows to build" --> "allows"   or 
                                         "allows the construction of"


    last para, 2nd sentence: 
        "the formulas in the conclusion and the premises"  --> 
        "the formulas allowed in the conclusion and/or the premises"


2.0.2
-------
   2nd para:
      "RIF-BLD" --> "RIF-FLD" 

2.0.3
-------
   1st para, 2nd sentence:
       "any kind of terms" --> "any kind of term"

    last para:
        How does this ("carving out a subset of terms via signatures") 
relate to the
      3rd bullet in section 2.0.1?
 
       "uses signatures to define what is called well-formed terms" -->
       "uses signatures to define well-formed terms"
 
2.0.4
-------
   I find it slightly confusing that signatures are described as a 
mechanism.
   and a language for specifying the context where symbols can occur, but
   that it also says signatures can be derived from the context in which 
   symbols occur. (as for RIF-BLD).
 
   2nd para:
       If signatures are not part of the RIF language, why does SigNames 
have to
      be disjoint from Const and Var?

       1st bullet:
            "to represents the" --> "to represent the"

   Last bullet in definition of coherent signatures:
            "arrow expression" --> "arrow expressions"


2.0.5
-------
   2nd para:
       Maybe say why each variable can have only one signature
       while constants can have more.

   3rd para: 
        "Next we define well-formed terms and their signatures. Like the" 
-->
        "Next we use signatures to define well-formed RIF-FLD terms. As 
with"    (wording suggestion)
 
    4th bullet, 2nd sub-bullet:
        "ti" -->  "t1"    (same for 2nd sub-bullets of 5th and 6th 
bullets)

         in the 2nd bullet under the definition of coherent signatures in 
       section 2.0.4  it says that both arguments in an equality term must 
have 
       the same signature, but here it says that they don't actually have 
to 
       have the same signature, but they have to be <= a common one. 
       (same comment for the 6th bullet, subclass terms)

     8th bullet:
          the note:  is it that they "are always" or that "they always can 
be"?

    Example 1
       1st para:
           When the term{} signature is introduced, say what it 
represents. 

       3rd para:
           "r(r(a) r  (a b c))" --> "r(r(a)  r(a b c))" (extra space 
making it look like 3 arguments) 


2.0.6
-------
   2nd para, last sentence:
        Maybe rewrite to something like "All constant symbols 
        have a syntax and semantics imposed by the symbol space 
        to which they belong."

   4th para:
        "...and an identifier" --> "...and one or more identifiers"  ? (to 
match the overview)
       (and change 2nd bullet to match)

   bulleted list under para "RIF supports the following symbol spaces"
       1st & 2nd bullets:
            "corresponds" --> "correspond"

       4th bullet:
            "dateTime" --> "date"

   para under rif:iri bullet:
         "A rif:iri constant is supposed to be interpreted" -->
         "A rif:iri constant must be interpreted"

   para under rif:local bullet:
         "in their respective rulesets" --> 
         "in their containing rulesets" ?


   Notes on RIF-compliant support for symbols spaces:
         I think there should be a more general definition, or link
         to one, of a RIF-compliant inference engine, before talking
         about how symbol spaces fit into it.


3.0.1
-------
    3rd bullet: 
       "...is a symbol space that has a fixed interpretation..." -->
       "...is a symbol space whose symbols have a fixed interpretation..."
 
    4th bullet:
       "..so-called well-founded or stable models." -->
       "...well-founded or stable models."  ?
 

3.0.2
-------
   1st para: 
        "As a special case, <t can be a total order in some dialects." -->
        "Note that <t can be a total order in some dialects." 


3.0.3
-------
    The xsd data types listed here (twice) don't match the ones in 2.0.6

    last para:  (wording suggestion)
        "Lexical spaces define the syntax of the constant symbols in the 
          RIF language that belong to the various primitive data types. In 

         contrast, value spaces define the meaning of those constants"

           -->

        "Lexical spaces define the syntax of the constant symbols in the
         RIF language. Value spaces define the meaning of the constants,
         for the primitive data types,"


3.0.4
-------
   ISF bullet
        Is it supposed to map from D instead of from Const?

        setOfFiniteBags --> setOfFiniteSets

        Remove/change  the sentence under the 2nd sub-bullet that says why
        bags are used.

  IFrame bullet:
      "IFrame represent an object" --> "IFrame represents an object"

   para "The effect of signatures:
       "are supposed to be" --> "must be"
       "is supposed to be"  --> "must be" 

   last para: 
      "requirements to IC for constants in the lexical spaces" -->
      "requirements on IC for constants in the symbols spaces"
 
3.0.5
-------
  1st para:
       "RIF-BLD" --> "RIF-FLD"

  Quantification bullet:
       Add I= to the semantic structure


3.0.6
-------
    Change the title to match the text  "Intended Semantic Structures" ?

   1st para, last sentence:  (wording suggestion)
      "There are different theories of how the intended sets of 
        semantic structures are supposed to look like."
           -->
      "Different logic theories may have different criteria for 
       what is considered an intended semantic structure"

Other:
--------
   Will the XML Serialization Framework section also address the mapping
   between presenation and concrete syntax?


-Stella