A few comments on SWC

3 RDF Compatibility
-----------------------------
   para beginning ("One consequence...")
       1.  it seems strange to say that typed literals of the form
            ...^^rif:iri in an RDF graph are treated the same as iris
            of the other form, and then say that RDF graphs
            containing typed literals of the form ...^^rif:iri must be
            rejected. If the point is that they're treated the same
            according to the definition of the semantics in section
            3, but that (conformant?) RIF processors must reject
            documents that import graphs that contain typed
            rf:iri literals (and so would not be treating them the
            same), then maybe that should be spelled out more.

        2. I think it would be helpful to include an explanation
            of  why documents importing RDF graphs containing
            typed  rif:iri literals must be rejected.

        3. in the example that follows, including a typed
            rif:iri literal in an RDF graph may be confusing
            since it's not allowed in practice in RIF-RDF
            combinations.


 5 Importing RDF and OWL in RIF
-----------------------------------------------
   3rd para: (suggestion)
       A RIF document contains a number of import statements
       -->
       A RIF document contains zero or more import statements


 5.2 Interpretation of Profiles
----------------------------------------
   3rd para:
       I think it would be helpful if somewhere in the
       document it said why RIF documents importing RDF
       graphs that contain rif:iri or rdf:text typed literals must
       be rejected.

       An earlier section says that, but not why, graphs
       containing rif:iri typed literals must be rejected.
       For rdf:text, there is just the mapping table in
       section 2, and then this.


Stella