Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (section 1)


I answer your comments in separate emails, trying to separate the 
concerns; this email is about section 1.

Summary: questions #1 and #2 (in my "issues" email [1]) seem to resolve 
to "should the informal introduction of example rules in the 
introduction be plain english or shall we rather use some sort of 
intuitive rule-like structure?


Detailled comments below.

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>> #1. Section 1.1: Introduction. I propose that we keep that section as it
>> is in the current version, except for typos and blatantly bad english. 
> I still object to this section because it introduces 2 presentation 
> syntaxes but one is never fully defined.
> This document needs to be split into a specification and a tutorial, but 
> we can do that after FPWD.

Do we agree that the document should be self-standing?

If yes, do you really think that we can just start with an unfamiliar 
and as yet unspecified syntax for the inroductory examples?

The "informal" syntax is not meant as a PS and it is not meant to be 
specified: it is meant to give an intuitive and informal sense of the 
example rules and of their structure as far as PRD is concerned, where 
just writing them in plain english might be heavy and difficult to 

This being said: would you prefer plain english instead of an informal 
rule-like presentation, for example 1.1 and the running example?

>> I
>> added an editor's note about the presentation syntax and will open the
>> corresponding issue. (Gary, could you check that I got the PS right in
>> example 1.2, please?)
> PRD does not support logic functions so your example won't work.  I 
> changed it.

Yes, I forgot the "external" around the function "CurrentYerCumul", and 
the IRI (it was meant to be an application-specific function).

But your transcription is ok with me.

Just for the sake of clarification: if we considered only the RIF 
document as part of which that rule would be interchanged, "Gold" coudl 
as well be a local name, right?

>> #2. Section 1.3: Running example. I propose that we keep it as in the
>> current version. I added a paragraph at the end of the section to clarify
>> some of the assumptions (per [4]):
> In your new informal PS, the repeated use of the term "which" is awkward 
> (but then, so is the notion of a second PS)

I removed the whiches (but if we agree on plain english, the informal 
rule-like form will go away anyway).


Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 13:36:56 UTC