- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:24:47 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:33:49 +0200 Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > > >> My point was that the thing in the BLD presentation syntax is called > >> "document" and not "RIF-BLD-document" or "RIF document". > > > > I see. Actually, it is called "document formula" or "RIF-BLD document formula". > > You are right. I forgot the "formula" part. > > But, concerning "RIF-BLD document formula": it is used in some places > (even "RIF-BLD document" is used), but there is no definition. I now added "RIF-BLD" in front of "document formula" in the definition. > I would suggest to include this definition where "document formula" is > defined (i.e., section 2.4), or even add an additional section. > on that note, when strictly reading the definitions, annotations do not > seem to be part of document formulas. So, I would recommend to define > documents after defining annotations, and taking the annotations into > account in the definition. I now added a definition of "RIF-BLD document" as a "RIF-BLD document formula" with or without an annotation. This is in the short section about annotations. > Actually, in order to allow annotations in front of arbitrary sub > formulas, annotations should be included in the definition of a formula. > For example, one bullet in the Definition (Well-formed formula) could be: > * ''Annotated formula'': If psi is a well-formed formula, then (* id phi > *) psi also a well-formed formula. I added a clarifying clause that annotations are allowed for subformulas and subterms. However, I did not add annotated formulas among the bullets in the main definition, since it would complicate things. This is because, I assume, we do not want annotations to be added to already annotated terms and formulas. So, the nice recursive nature of the definitions would have to be spoiled with qualifications. --michael > Thus, Jos > > > > > > > --michael >

Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 16:28:44 UTC