Re: rif pubs status

Hi Sandro,

I had a quick look at all the docs. In addition to Jos's comments, I 
noticed the following:

All documents:
- The organisation of the listing of the set of documents looks quite 
random: wouldn't it make more sense to have, e.g., first the Overview, 
then the dialects and dialect frameworks (Core, BLD, PRD, FLD), then DTB, 
then the combination (SWC, XML-data, OWL2RL), then the Tests?

In Core:
- The only syntax that is explicitely said to be normative is the 
"mathematical english" (preamble section 2). I suggest that the section 
that contains the XSD be marked normative: "10 Appendix: XML Schema for 
RIF Core (Normative)";
- In the EBNF for the condition language, names are defined as being 
UNICODESTRINGs, but that has been changed, at some point, in BLD, to be 
NCnames (btw, shouldn't all the XSD be changed to enforce that 
constraint?);
- Is it a good idea for that same section to refer to another place for 
the schema: "XML schemas for the RIF-Core sublanguages are defined below 
and are also available here with additional examples.", where "here" is 
not an official W3C RIF location?
- Talking of location: is that a problem if the RIF namespace dereferences 
a page that contains an XSD that includes an old version of the BLD 
schema: <xs:include schemaLocation="
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/ED-rif-bld-20080219/BLD.xsd"/>?
- In the acknowledgement section, I am affiliated with ILOG, instead of 
IBM (same in BLD, SWC, PRD, ;

In BLD:
- The appendix containing the XSD refers also to a copy of the schema 
outside of W3C;
- the EBNF reproduced in the XSD still has NAME ::= UNICODESTRING;

In FLD:
- Repeated reference [OWL reference] in section 6.1;
- Same question as for Core and BLD wrt the reference to another location 
for the XSD (in the preamble of section 7);
- the EBNF reproduced in the XSD still has NAME ::= UNICODESTRING;
- There is no "Acknowledgement" section in FLD: is that a problem?

In DTB:
- No acknowledgement section, either;
- Format of the change log is different from the other docs: is that a 
problem?

In PRD:
- The last sentence before example 9.1, in section 9 (Presentation 
syntax), is wrong: "Names are Unicode character sequences. Variables are 
composed of UNICODESTRING symbols prefixed with a ?-sign ". As mentionned 
earlier, names have been changed, at some point, to NCNames (the EBNF has 
been updated, but not that sentence, nor the fragment of EBNF as comments 
in the XSD);
- In the change log, the link to the Feb12 draft is missing: "Changes 
since the [ draft of February 12th, 2010] ".

in Tests:
- No acknowledgement section;
- The change log lists changes since the  version 12 Dec 2008, without 
mention of the Oct 1, 2009, version: is that a problem?

in XML-data:
- No acknowledgement section;
- No section numbering;
- The change log does not mention the previous version explicitly: is that 
a problem?

in OWL2RL:
- No acknowledgement section;
- OWL2 specs are listed as CR in the reference section;
- In the change log, the reference to the previous draft is not linked: is 
that a problem?

That's all I found, as I browsed through the docs...

Sandro, how do we do the corrections, if you think that corrections are 
needed at this point?

Cheers,

Christian

IBM
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10




From:
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
To:
public-rif-wg@w3.org
Date:
06/05/2010 22:11
Subject:
rif pubs status
Sent by:
public-rif-wg-request@w3.org




I think all the mechanical problems are taken care of.  We have a few
days to look over them again with human eyes.  Please take a look if you
have a few minutes:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-overview-20100511/

Thanks, everyone.

         -- Sandro





Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siege Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 611.451.766,20 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644