W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Minor comments on rdf:text

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:00:40 +0100
To: "'Antoine Zimmermann'" <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "'Axel Polleres'" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Message-ID: <8D3380978C374B9992ECDE2C82C4D2CD@wolf>
Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Antoine Zimmermann
> Sent: 21 April 2009 20:38
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: 'W3C OWL Working Group'; Axel Polleres
> Subject: Minor comments on rdf:text
> 
> I have very minor comments on rdf:text, no reason to postpone publication.
> 
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > A new set of snapshots:
> >
> > linked from:
> >    [...]
> >    http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-rdf-text-20090420/
> 
> Sect.1: "text in various different languages" -> "text in various
> languages" or "text in different languages".
> 

Thanks -- I've changed this.

> 
> The special bracket characters used to write a pair ( F , v ) take 3
> times as much vertical space as any other character (in Firefox 3.0.8)
> or are replaced by squares (in IE 7.0.5730.11).
> 
> However, in the Structural Specification document, the special brackets
> are displayed correctly in Firefox (but still replaced by squares in IE).
> The differences between rdf:text and SS&FS are:
> 
> In rdf:text, the code is:
> <span class="name">&lang; F v &rang;</span>
> 
> and the CSS says that:
> 
> .name {
>      font-family: monospace;
> }
> 
> In SS&FS, the code is:
> &lang; <i>F</i> <i>v</i> &rang;
> 
> Couldn't we just use normal brackets for all tuples in all documents?
> This would also make things more consistent, since sometimes tuples are
> represented with normal brackets, sometimes with angle brackets. BTW, it
> is a rather standard practice to use normal brackets to write tuples in
> mathematics.
> 
> 

I thought that using angle brackets would be better for clarity; however, I have
obviously underestimated the problems of using HTML as a typesetting system.
I've changed all &lang; and &rang; into ( and ).

> Sect.4, last parag.:
> "an RDF tool that suports rdf:text MUST ..." -> "an RDF tool that
> supports rdf:text MUST ..."
> 

Thanks -- I've changed it.

> "(normative or nonnormative)" compare in the header "in these
> non-normative formats: PDF version". Shouldn't the word
> "non-normative/nonnormative" normalized throughout the documents?
> I noticed that both spelling are used in almost all OWL 2 documents.
> 

In American English, the prefix non- is usually written together with the main
word. Thus, you have a nonnegative integer or a nonmonotonic logic; therefore,
you also have a nonnormative section of a document. In all documents that I'm an
editor of, I've used American English, and have written thins this way.

> 
> Sect.5.3.2:
> "a sequence of length 0 or 1 of type rdf:texts" -> "... of type rdf:text"
> 

I've changed this to "is a sequence of length 0 or 1 of literals of type
<tt>rdf:text</tt>".


Thanks for the comments!

Boris

> Regards,
> --
> Antoine Zimmermann
> Post-doctoral researcher at:
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Galway
> IDA Business Park
> Lower Dangan
> Galway, Ireland
> antoine.zimmermann@deri.org
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 10:01:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 April 2009 10:02:00 GMT