W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Oops and review comments

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:20:07 +0000
Message-Id: <DCBD3157-594C-4ECC-808E-A4F4BA75A0C0@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Oops, I just did some reviewing of the XML Syntax and I think I'm  
slated for the fragments doc.  Or rather I wanted only one :) But I  
see I have actions for both. Sigh.

Well, I've done some reviewing of the XML Syntax document. I wanted  
to remind reviewers that you can inline comments using the review  
template e.g.,:

	{{Review|~~~~|I'd make the prior paragraph a temporary editors note.  
It shouldn't appear in the final spec.}}

(the ~~~~ gets auto expanded with your name and a timestamp, a la:
	{{Review|[[User:BijanParsia|BijanParsia]] 08:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)| 
I'd make the prior paragraph a temporary editors note. It shouldn't  
appear in the final spec.}}
)

One thing that would be nice is if I could generate a text file of my  
review comments (with back pointers) so that I could email them to  
the list with more "overally" comments....

My overall comment is that it's fine to go. I'd really like the  
examples removed or the owl11xml prefixes removed (since they make  
the examples illegible). With the primer there's some question as to  
whether we should have examples at all. Structuring it a bit more  
like the RDF Mapping (i.e., terse, with a description of the  
methodology of the derivation of the schema, then the schema might be  
enough.) I wouldn't mind a somewhat richer introduction.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 14:18:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 March 2008 14:18:40 GMT