Re: [PRD] is in a freezable state

I'm happy enough and have just a few issues:

2.1.1, 2.2.1.1 (maybe elsewhere, too) contain the following sentence -- 
It is specified in the normative schema as a substitution group.
I would delete this sentence because
a. there is no normative schema
b. it probably isn't a substitution group.  BLD uses a group element, 
not a substitution group.

Should also log an ISSUE about how the BLD and PRD schemas should 
interrelate -- should they both include a Core schema so we are sure 
about what the syntactic subset is, or are the schemas separate and we 
have to check by hand that instances overlap as intended?

2.2 -- RIF-PRD defines one single abstract class for actions: ACTION, 
that is realised by three concrete constructs:

    * the ASSERT and Retract constructs are associated with an Atom or a
      Frame that represents the target of the actions.

It isn't clear that the 3 concrete constructs are Retract, Atom, and Frame

2.2.1.1, editor's note -- we already have a way to make an assertion PRD 
or BLD specific.  E.g.
P(?x) :- Q(?x)  // core
Do(P(?x)) :- Q(?x)  // PRD only
And(P(?x)) :- Q(?x) // BLD only

2.4 and elsewhere in 2.*

I think you should change <Var>?c</Var> to <Var>c</Var>
unless you mean that it should be ??c in the PS

3.4.

What are the semantics of ground actions in a ruleset?  I think these 
could be modeled as an initial instantiation.

3.4.1.

Can you add to the editors note:

A precise statement of the matching theory with respect to the data 
types and builtins in DTB will be added.

Throughout -- I would prefer American over British spellings, e.g. 
labeled not labelled, serialized not serialised, etc.

Fix as many as you can (and agree with) and then publish!

I'll "see" you all at the July 22 telecon.

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> Sandro,
>
> You can freeze PRD.
>
> Gary, you can review it. I made one modification in the PS and the 
> appendix where PRD and BLD are compared: I removed the optional 
> directives form PRD documents: import, profiles, base etc are not 
> specified in this version of the PRD draft, so, I just put them on a 
> BLD line (they were marked as Core) and marked them "undefined in this 
> version of the draft" for PRD.
>
> Also, I added an editor's note in that same appendix, quilifying the 
> use of "Core" (basically to the effect that, until Core is defined 
> more prcisely, we consider it to be the intersection of BLD and PRD).
>
> I may, if you agree, add the UML-like diagram in appendix 7: it is not 
> included now, because I have only an obsolete version of it (e.g. 
> without the RULE production allowing ACTIONs, or NAU etc).
>
> Gary, I hope that we will get a nihil obstat before you go on vacation 
> (that's tomorrow, right? I will have to wait until Friday night :-)
>
> Cheers
>

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 21:46:28 UTC