- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:48:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I fixed up some HTML brokenness, much due to the Wiki, and fixed a few
broken links.
Here is my analysis of the current status.
- NO! means broken due to something strange that I can't diagnose
- ? means links between our documents that look OK but the link checker
breaks on somehow
peter
PS: If the link checker make the fragment links be live links, then it
would be easy to verify that they are all OK. I followed the links
for Direct Semantics, and they all looked OK, but I didn't for the
other documents.
PPS: Adding refs during the publication process is a *bad* idea, as it
makes it hard to determine which links are bad.
HTML Links
DO Y NO - because there are no refs!!!!!!!!!
SS & FS Y Y
Mapping Y Y
Direct Semantics Y ?
RDF Semantics Y Y
Conformance Y ?
Profiles Y ?
Primer NO
NF&R NO!
QRG NO!
XML Serialization Y ?
Manchester Y Y
DRE Y ?
rdf:text Y Y
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 14:48:48 UTC