- From: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:42:26 -0400
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF916C8DF5.9939657A-ON85257489.005F987A-8525748A.00404FBE@us.ibm.com>
Hi,
These are minor editorial and simple error comments, and not issues with
regard to publication.
Stella
simple error:
------------------
For import directives that specify a profile, the profile identifier is
defined as an IRI constant in
SWC, but as a term in several places in BLD:
section 2.3
Definition (formula):
document bullet
directive bullet
import directive bullet
section 2.6.2, ebnf grammar
editorial suggestions:
-------------------------------
Section 2
1st para
but not intended --> but is not intended
Section 2.1
Can Document and Group just be added to the list in the previous
bullet?
Section 2.2
"Internal base term" is defined to simplify the language in the
definition
of term, but it is never used in that definition. It could be
deleted (and
appropriate update made to "base term")
Section 2.3
Definition (formula):
The para between the condition and rule implication breaks
up the definition. Can it be indented to the level of the
condition
bullet? (and the last sentence deleted)
numbering the outer list would make it more clear which are
the main bullets of the formula definition
document bullet, group sub-bullet:
that makes the actual logical content... -->
that contains the logical content...
document bullet, directive sub-bullet
The base and prefix sub-bullets are written as if
prefix is
first in the text, but it is second.
indented para at the end of the bullet:
A document formula can contain a sequence of
directives, all optional and with at most one
base
directive. The base directive, if present, must
be first,
followed by any number of prefix directives,
followed
by any number of import directives.
last bullet:
better as a para indented to the appropriate level
Also, since the directive bullet already says that
directives
are all optional, could just add such a sentence
to the
group bullet and remove this bullet.
para following defintion (formula):
that are built with the help of these components -->
that are built using them.
Section 2.4
3rd para:
since phi is a conjuction -->
since phi can be a conjunction ?
4th para:
It is suggested to use -->
We suggest the use of
Section 2.5
1st para:
a requirement is that no constant is allowed to appear in more
than one context -->
it is required that no constant appear in more than one
context
2nd para:
If this correctly captures the meaning, I think it's more
clear:
The set of all constant symbols, const, is
partitioned into subsets as follows:
-- A subset of individuals
The symbols in const that belong to the
primitive datatypes
are required to be individuals
-- A number of subsets for predicate symbols
The symbols in each subset all share the
same
arity, argument style (named or
positional), and
internal/external designation
-- A number of subsets for function symbols
The symbols in each subset all share the
same
arity, argument style (named or
positional), and
internal/external designation
3rd para:
suggest to remove the 2 bullets and just put those 2 sentences
with
the previous sentence to make a paragraph.
Definition (Context of a symbol)
1st bullet:
parenthetical comment:
I'm don't think it's clear what the parenthetical
comment
about arity and named/positional arguments is
saying.
That positional and named argument forms are
different
contexts?
Section 2.6
Maybe say how the shortcuts for constants fit in. Since they
are only defined in the EBNF, are they not part of the normative
PS?
2nd bullet:
says the EBNF does not address the details of how constants
and variables are represented, but it seems to address at least
some details?
3rd bullet:
(The non-normative status of the EBNF grammar should not
be confused with the normative status of the RIF-BLD
presentation
syntax)
-->
Note, however, that the RIF-BLD presentation syntax, as specified
in mathematical English, is normative.
Section 2.6.1
would be better to have a sentence right under the EBNF
saying that CONSTSHORT, ANGLEBRACKIRI and
CURIE are defined in DTB (and ref). And then remove those
(location) details from the text several paragraphs down.
Section 2.6.2
2nd para after the 2nd box
Base and Prefix just serve as shortcut mechanisms for
(long) IRIs
-->
Base and Prefix serve as shortcut mechanisms for IRIs
A RIF-BLD group is a nested collection... -->
A RIF-BLD group is a collection...
(nesting is covered by the "nested" at the end
of the sentence?)
4th para after the 2nd box
as conclusion --> as its conclusion
as premise --> as its premise
Example 3, before the box
reference to RIF-DTB has an extra "["
Section 3
1st para
Do shortcuts for constants also have to be addressed
here (along with the statement about Prefix and Base)?
Section 3.2
list item #5
represent an object --> represents an object
list item #10
reference to DTB needs to be corrected
Section 3.3
1st sentence
constitue --> constitute
Section 3.4
2nd para.
"To this end" doesn't flow well from the previous sentence.
how about just "We define..."
Section 3.5
1st definition
what does it mean to be labeled with a document formula?
2nd definition
multi-structure, which contains --> multi-structure that contains
are ignored here --> are not covered here
Section 4
1st definition:
w.r.t. --> with respect to
Section 4.1
1st box:
add ", with optional 'ordered' attribute" to the
args and slot items
para above example 5:
utilize --> use (twice)
XML term elements such as const -->
the XML term element const ?
datatype can be --> datatype is ?
to indicate the orderedness of children of the
elements args and slot it is associated with
-->
to indicate whether the children of args
and slots elements are ordered
Section 4.2
1st para
We now extend the RIF-BLD serialization -->
We now extend the set of RIF-BLD serialization elements
2nd sentence -->
The extended set includes the tags listed below.
should the reference to the PS syntax be to the
normative specification of it, instead of to the EBNF?
Section 4.3.1
does anything have to be said about shortcut constants?
1st para, 2nd sentence:
I think it would be just as clear, and read easier if
the "Presentation|XML" were deleted.
1st para, 3rd:
...differentiate between the terms...from terms.... -->
...differentiate between the terms...and the terms....
Section 5
do the formulas have to be well-formed?
1st para:
the conformant systems --> conformant systems
2nd para:
,which --> that (twice)
conformant producer:
Formally ... in L -->
Formally, ... in the subset of L ?
RIF-BLD specific clauses:
The preceding part of section 5 was not for BLD, but for
all of RIF?
2nd bullet:
inputs which do not match --> inputs that do not match
3rd bullet:
externals that are required... --> externals required...
Section 6.1
item 2, sub bullet d:
2 sentences in a row (the last 2) start with "Thus."
How about "Accordingly," for the last one?
para between item 2 and 3:
the author --> the ruleset author?
item 3,
2nd sub bullet:
significant restrctions. This is so in order... -->
significant restrictions, in order...
Received on Friday, 18 July 2008 11:43:36 UTC