- From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:21:12 -0400
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF44226B7A.035B5D4C-ON85257482.0081F826-85257483.004ED846@us.ibm.com>
Hi Axel,
I'm resending these comments (slightly updated) from a few weeks ago,
because I don't
know if you saw them. I think the items in the first section are simple
errors that could
be corrected for this WD. I didn't check the typos and wording
suggestions against the
current document.
Stella
Comments:
-----------------
The text of the abstract is missing.
Section 2.1.2
EBNF: LANGTAG is not used, rif:text types are not
covered?
Sections 4.1 and 4.2:
add guard and negative guard predicates for xsd:date
Section 4.3
add a cast function for xsd:date
Section 4.3.6
I think the motivating example in the 1st paragraph is not
complete:
this would immediately result in ...
-->
and then if a ruleset asserted "http://example.org/iriA
"^^rif:iri =
"http://example.org/iriB"^^rif:iri, this would result in
...
Section 4.4.1.4 (func:numeric-divide)
Mapping bullet:
Delete the first sentence (looks like a leftover
copy/paste)
Section 4.4.2
add pred:numeric-not-equal
Sections 4.6.1 & 4.6.2
remove the predicates and functions related to xsd:duration
type
(4.6.1.13-4.6.1.18 and 4.6.2.10)
Document:
To match the list of data types in section 2.2, a number of
references to
xs:long throughout the document need to be updated to
xs:double
The text in sections 2.1.1 and 2.2 says that all RIF dialects
must
include all the symbol spaces and data types. (as opposed to
the catalog idea, where each dialect specifies which subset
it requires).
General:
-------------
How about renaming the first section to Introduction or Overview,
(keeping
the current content) and adding some introductory description
about how
this document fits with the others (as described in the abstract),
intended
audience, how it should be updated when new dialects are defined,
and
general topics such as that rule sets can use additional symbol
spaces
that are not included in this document...
Typos & wording suggestions:
---------------------------------------------
Section 1
----------------
1st sentence:
make "RIF's presenation syntax" a link
2.1. Constants and Symbol Spaces
-----------------------------------------------------
1st para, last sentence:
identified by IRI --> identified by <identifier>
Definition (Symbol space):
FLD also has a third bullet saying that two symbol spaces
cannot share
the same identifier
Next para:
However, to simplify --> <new para> For convenience,
("However" doesn't seem like an appropriate link between
the 2 sentences)
Next para:
2nd sentence:
Maybe expand on the statement about rulesets being able
to use
additional symbol spaces.
bulleted list:
xsd:decimal bullet:
corresponds --> correspond
2 duration bullets:
2nd bullet:
xsd:dayTimeDuration --> xsd:yearMonthDuration
para before EBNF:
I think it reads better reworded as:
In order to make rules written in RIF's presentation
syntax more readable,
the syntax includes shortcut notations for constants in
several of the
symbol spaces. RIF's presentation syntax for constants is
defined by
the following EBNF.
UNICODESTRING:
escpape --> escape
last para before section 2.2:
Other than the first sentence, the rest of the text seems out
of place here -
or it should have a different lead in, other than "For
instance"
2.2. Data Types
-----------------------
3rd para:
DTS always includes the data types supported by that dialect
-->
DTS always includes the data types required by that dialect
3.1 Syntax of Built-ins
-------------------------------
1st para:
does BLD need to be called out here, (since this is supposed
to
be common to all dialects?
2nd para:
defined in in --> defined in
For RIF's normative syntax, see XML Serialization Syntax for
RIF-BLD -->
For RIF's normative syntax, see XML Serialization Syntax for
RIF-FLD ?
3rd para:
both the well-formed externally defined terms and their syntax
-->
both the syntax and semantics of exernally defined terms
schemas have especially simple form -->
schemas have an especially simple form
3.2 Semantics of Built-ins
-------------------------------------
1st para:
does BLD need to be called out here, since this is supposed
to be common to all dialects?
4 List of Supported Built-in Predicates and Functions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about changing the section heading to: "RIF Built-in Predicates
and Functions"?
list item 5 (intended domains):
I think the last 2 sentences of first paragraph read better
reworded as:
This means that if one or more of the arguments is not in
its intended domain, the
value of Iexternal(ó)(a1 ... an) can vary from one
semantic structure to another. Similarly,
Itruth ï Iexternal(ó)(a1 ... an) can be t in some
interpretations and f in others when an argument
is not in the intended domain.
4.1 (same comments apply to section 4.2 )
---------------------------------------------------------------
1st para:
RIF requires guard predicates for all its supported data types -->
RIF requires guard predicates for all its data types
Also, section 4.2 uses 'has' where this sentence says 'requires'
and at the end of section 4.2 it says that RIF does *not* require
guards
for all data types.
1st bullet:
for one of the RIF supported data types -->
for one of the RIF data types
where applicable without creating ambiguities -->
where applicable as long as they don't create ambiguities
4.3 Cast Functions...
------------------------------
for all its supported data types -->
for all of the data types
4.3.3 rdf:XMLLiteral
------------------------------
Mappings bullet:
Mappings --> Mapping
givne --> given
4.3.4 rif:text
----------------
Mapping bullet:
s --> s1
4.3.5 rif:iri
----------------
"The following equalities hold in every RIF interpretation for each
unicode string a:"
--> for each string, or only for those that are in a
certain format?
"a"^^xsd:iri --> "a"^^rif:iri
there are a few <tt> tags in the last paragraph
4.3.6 pred:iri-to-string
--------------------------------
1st para:
the link to the rif:iri cast function needs to be fixed up
2nd para:
" (see example below)" -- can't find the example below
Schema bullet:
(?arg1, ?arg1) --> (?arg1, ?arg2)
Intended domain bullet:
aregument --> argument
Mapping bullet:
(?arg1, ?arg1) --> (?arg1, ?arg2)
is en --> is in
4.4.1 Numeric Functions
-----------------------------------
which functions does the sentence between sections 4.4.1.1 and
4.4.1.2 apply to?
should it be moved to the beginning, or qualified?
4.4.1.4 func:numeric-divide
----------------------------------------
Mapping bullet:
I'm not sure "backs up the "div" operator" is self-explanatory
enough for a reader
of this document? (same comment for next few sections)
4.4.2
-------
which predicates does the sentence between sections 4.4.2.1 and
4.4.2.2 apply to?
it should be qualified and possibily moved to the beginning?
4.5 Functions and Predicates on Strings
----------------------------------------------------------
2nd para:
we equally allow simply to write --> we allow the equivalent
forms
The comment about not lifting restrictions made in BLD seems
like
it would be better placed in the BLD document, since DTB is
supposed
to be general to all dialects.
4.5.1.2 func:concat
----------------------------
(?arg1; func:concat1(1)) --> (?arg1; func:concat1(?arg1))
4.5.1.3 func:string-join
--------------------------------
schema bullet
two of them are named join2
4.5.2.4
---------
pred:matchess --> pred:matches
6 Appendix
-----------------
RIF-BLD --> RIF-DTB
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 14:22:14 UTC