Re: RIF-Test review

Mike, thank you for the review and comments.

I made all of the changes except for


>
> Section 4.2.1, 4.3.1, and 4.3.2
>
>  Enumerate the subproperties?



where instead of enumerating the subproperties I commented out the reference
to them. We need to complete this section, including indicating different
versions (syntaxes) of input documents, for the next WD.

Stella

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Mike Dean <MDEAN@bbn.com> wrote:

> Below are my review comments for RIF-Test [1].  Most are minor; I didn't
> find any showstoppers for publication.
>
> I have another commitment during today's telecon, unfortunately.
>
>        Mike
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test
>
>
> Section 1
>
>  RIF implementers in test harnesses => RIF implementors using test
> harnesses?
>
> Section 1.1
>
>  Extra space in RIF- Core Conformance Clauses
>
>  Extra space before Core XML Schema?
>
>  and then performing the entailment test[s].
>
>  it does not completely cover the RIF-BLD specification => it does not
> completely cover the RIF specificatiion
>
> Section 3.1.1
>
>  syntacti[c]ally
>
> Section 3.3 and 3.3.1
>
>  Premise vs. premises
>
> Section 4.1.3, 4.1.9, 4.2.1, 6
>
>  I suggest property references like :dialect use just dialect or
> rifTest:dialect
>
> Section 4.1.6 and 4.1.7
>
>  Shouldn't the types be xs:anyURI rather than rdfs:Literal?
>
>  Start both sections with a capital.
>
> Section 4.1.8
>
>  I believe it should be dc:contributor
>
> Section 4.1.0
>
>  OWL-Full[.]
>
> Section 4.2.1, 4.3.1, and 4.3.2
>
>  Enumerate the subproperties?
>
> Section 6
>
>  catalog => registry?
>
>
>
>