[XML-Data] review of current draft

Here's my review of [1] based on the version last modified on 17 June 2010, at 07:59.

I think it's OK to publish as a Working Draft, particularly after some of the typos below are fixed.

Section 2

  Is there a reason to mix IRI and URI here?

  associated to => associated with? (throughout)

  Bullets are not effectively formatted in Editor's Note

  It would be good to include one or more examples of the extended Import directive

  when one of the above constraint[s] is not satisfied

  comformant => conformant

  neither rif:xml-data, nor => neither rif:xml_data nor

Section 3

  stripped down version => subset?

Section 3.1

  children property => [children] property

Section 3.2

  Add name after "The namespace name, if any, of the element type".

  element-type name => element type name

  Inconsistent use of . vs ; to end final sentences in list.  I prefer consistent use of .

  The [root] property all the => The [root] property of all the

  to access to its => to access its

  from its [typed value]?

  The minor deviations from XDM concern me, because they may preclude re-using code developed for XDM.

  true, otherwise => true; otherwise (twice)

Section 3.3

  The only value that are relevant => The only values that are relevant

  attribute[,] or if no declaration

  [attribue type] => [attribute type]

Section 3.5

  one atomic values => one atomic value

  duplicate ID => duplicate IDs

Section 3.6

  It's perhaps confusing that Id isn't an id, unless you're trying to make a specific point.

  schema, is a => schema is a

  in same order => in the same order

  numered => numbered

  list, below => list below

  both cases, if => both the case where

  when it has been => where it had been

  Inconsistent use of ; after property values.  I'd omit them everywhere

  Missing space after [is-idrefs]: (throughout)

  [attributes] for xml:lang is missing [is-idrefs]

  a sequence of four ... spelling 2 2 2 => a sequence of three ... spelling 2 2 2

Section 4

  One or more Import directive[s] where

  to combines the => to combine the

  independently on => independently of

Section 4.1

  The document needs some examples of RIF rules using XML data.  I'd start with these before delving into the semantics, which will lose most readers.

  Const denote[s] the ... and Var denote[s] the set

  ascribe => assign?

  white spec => white space

  s 's => s's

  In Example 4.1, "1" doesn't look like a string with the number 1 - possible font problem.

  The constant "1"^^xs:string is listed twice; should the second be "1"^^xs:int?  What about just "1"?

  the reference[s] have been resolved

  It would be great to be able to use @NAME instead of attribute(NAME) for consistency with XPath, etc.

  proprties => properties

  the[namespace name] => the [namespace name] (add white space) (twice)

  [RFC-3987[: => [RFC-3987];

  does not allows => does not allow

  RIF-BLD => RIF BLD

  Comments TBC?

  Is _Customer_John the actual symbol, or intended as a representative skolem?

  exemple => example

  Without a namespace, it would seem much more appropriate to use symbols than strings for "Name", "Account", and "Customer".  Is _Customer_John # "Customer" valid RIF?

  with a mixed-content => with mixed-content

Section 4.1.2

  compared for => compared using

  The sentence with "non-empty intersection" is ungrammatical.  I assume it refers to the intersection of the 2 types.

  TBC => TBD?

  the reference[s] have been resolved

  property are matched => properties are matched

  an elements => an element (twice)

  example 4.2 => Example 4.2

Section 4.1.3

  all the XML document[s]

  ⋃ presumably should be replaced by some character

Section 4.2

  a ground facts => a ground fact

  added in => added to

  schema valid or schema valid should presumably include something different

  RIF-BLD => RIF BLD

Section 6

  RDF an dOWL => RDF and OWL

  graphs, directly; or as => graphs:  directly or as an

  this two => these two

  Treating RDF as XML is dangerous, since there are many ways of expressing the same thing and the source serialization could change.

Section 7

  RIF references should be updated from Working Draft to (Proposed) Recommendation

Section 8

  expanded-QName => expanded QName

  extra ] in QName definition

Section 9.1

  [validaty] => [validity]

  Is {name} the same as [name], etc. for properties?

  mapping proper[ly] maps

Section 12

  Fixed on URI?

Thanks!

	Mike

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/XML-Data