AW: RIF Internal reviews

Hi Changhai,

 

 thanks for sending the review.

 

I started to address your comments 13 -27 on the semantics of PRD – please see below.

 

-Adrian

 

This section is very difficult to understand, and is very far from the production rule basics. I needs to be expressed in simpler terms 

 

I don’t think so. We are writing a specification for a language where the semantics according to the RIF charter should be clearly defined and if possible as a model-theory. We are not writing a RIF PRD primer which primarily explains how to practically apply RIF PRD (as a production rules programmer I would study the XML schema content models and test cases in the first place, anyway)

 

quite difficult to understand

 

= Model-theoretic interpretation

 

Is there a simpler way to express this paragraph, or maybe we can explain what's the intention of this!

 

To me the intention is clear, it describes the semantic structure of PRD as the heading says. It gives important information such that D is the Herbrand Domain formed by all ground terms or that TV is a two valued logic, etc.

 

Since the beginning of 2.2 to here, I don’t understand the intention of all this text. There is a very big rupture.

Yes, the big picture is to describe the semantics of the condition language in PRD which intersects with Core and the semantics of BLD. Each state in the transition logic of PRD is then a herbrand interpretation and at least for a classical production rule system (without inflationary negation) it is possible to define the semantics

 

What does all this mean? Can there be an example to illustrate the purpose?

 

Basically means that RIF PRD can have can interpret other datatypes than those define in DTB

 

is this coomutative?

 

Yes

 

Wow! I understand this section!!

 

great

 

Need an example to illustrate

 

There is an active link in this sentence which links to the concrete definition

 

When an atom is false, do you stop the evaluation?

 

That would be part of an operational semantics

 

Same comment, if one is true, do you stop the evluation?

 

That would be part of an operational semantics

 

This big chevron gives the headache, I acquire the automatism to skip on it.

 

For the necessary level of detail we should keep it

 

I don't understand what this means.

 

It defines truth valuation in the presences of existential variable quantification

 

The meaning of this paragraph can be guessed intuitively. But another way can be to say what is a fact, then a set of facts, etc. We don't have to take the explanation the other way around.

 

But we are coming from the earlier definitions of a Herbrand Interpreation which now related to the current state, i.e. the set of facts. What we try here is to bridge to the operational semantics of PRD

 

If the previous sections explain the same things as this one, can we write this more explicitly, and also inform the readers they can skip on the the previous sections.

 

I don’t understand this comment. This section is about pattern matching the previous one about condition satisfaction.

 

If we want to precise, we need to define "representation". Otherwise, we may give an intuitive definition. Here we are between the two.

 

A definition is given earlier by “State of the fact base”

 

Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Changhai Ke
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 14:00
An: Chris Welty
Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
Betreff: Re: RIF Internal reviews

 


Chris and all, 

I have already provided my first version of PRD review to CSMA, but here it is (in word track changes): 



I'd like to read pages 30-35 in more details in the next days, if it's not too late (I have passed on them quickly). 

PS: My reviews were Core and PRD. 

Changhai 




From: 

Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> 


To: 

Changhai Ke/France/Contr/IBM@IBMFR 


Cc: 

"Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org> 


Date: 

19/05/2009 05:12 


Subject: 

Re: RIF Internal reviews

 

  _____  





Changhai,

We *really* need the PRD review by the telecon tomorrow.  At this stage we only 
have one review (from Harold).  Looks like Jos will not be able to provide one 
in time.

I will review DTB tonite, to ensure we have 2 reviews there, but I won't be able 
to do PRD also.

-Chris

Changhai Ke wrote:
> Note that I have sent my review of Core yesterday, and will review PRD.
> 
> Changhai
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
> To:
> Christian De Sainte Marie/France/Contr/IBM@IBMFR
> Cc:
> Changhai Ke/France/Contr/IBM@IBMFR, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, 
> Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Christopher Welty 
> <welty@us.ibm.com>, RIF WG Chairs <team-rif-chairs@w3.org>
> Date:
> 14/05/2009 19:16
> Subject:
> Re: RIF Internal reviews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, please let us know ASAP if there is a chance you will not finish 
> your 
> review(s), so that we can try to find an alternate.
> 
> Axel, you in particular seem at-risk since you have two to finish and 
> other 
> actions as well.  Will you be able to finish?
> 
> -Chris
> 
> Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
>> Changhai, Jos, Axel, (and Chris and csma)
>>
>> We want to make the decisions re LC publications of all the documents at 
> 
>> the next telecon, Tuesday 19 May, and you have actions to review 
> Core,BLD, 
>>  PRD, DTB, FLD and/or SWC [1-7].
>>
>> Could you, please, prioritize whatever else you have to do (what do I 
> say? 
>> RIF is your only concern, of course!) to be able to send your comments 
> on 
>> Friday, Monday morning at the very latest?
>>
>> That way, the editors will be able to read your comments before the 
>> telecon, and we will be able to have an useful discussion at the telecon 
> 
>> re remaining work and publication planning.
>>
>> Thanx for your help,
>>
>> CC&S
>>
>> [1]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/769> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/769
>> [2]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/770> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/770
>> [3]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/771> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/771
>> [4]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/772> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/772
>> [5]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/773> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/773
>> [6]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/774> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/774
>> [7]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/777> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/777
>>
>> ILOG, an IBM Company
>> 9 rue de Verdun
>> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
>> Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
>> Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
>>
>>
>> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
>> Compagnie IBM France
>> Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
>> Courbevoie
>> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
>> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
>> Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
>> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
 <http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty




Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 €
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430