W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2012

some minor issues in the 2nd edition documents

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:59:20 +0200
Message-ID: <50637AB8.7070207@fzi.de>
To: "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi!

Here are a few things that I found while checking through the documents. 
I will split up the list into document-specific issues that would need 
to be addressed by the respective document editors, and general issues 
that are probably best addressed by Sandro (or whoever currently builds 
the documents).

== Document-Specific Issues ==

01) RDF Mapping: Table 11 on parsing object property expressions has now 
an extended condition: "OPE(_:x) = \epsilon". While I don't see an 
immediate problem with this condition, I don't understand why it has 
been introduced. In comparison, for class expressions, AFAICT, there are 
never any conditions on the root blank nodes. I believe it is stated 
elsewhere, that blank nodes for expressions must not be reused, so this 
condition seems redundant to me. But there may well be a reason for it.

02) Structural Spec §2.2, duplicate word: "must must"

03) Structural Spec §11.2, "Restriction on Anonymous Individuals": 
grammar error (probably): "each tree in F contains at least one _an_ ..."

04) rdfPlainLiteral: misses the standard changelog item about XSD 
datatypes, although it is affected by the XSD Datatype issue, because it 
refers to the XSD datatypes spec.

== General Issues ==

05) Changelog: Some documents contain the item "Minor typographical 
errors were corrected as detailed on the OWL 2 Errata page." It's not 
always only typographical errors (that would be stuff like forgotten 
boldface rendering of characters, and such). Mostly, it's been some form 
of editorial error (not only typographical), and in few cases, there 
have even been technical changes. I would simply remove the word 
"typographical". As the item points to the errata, people can easily 
check what has actually been done for the particular document.

06) Changelog: The title of the new section "Changes Since 
Recommendation" should perhaps be more distinctive, including somthing 
like "(first version)" or so. Maybe this one won't be the only revision. :-)

07) Document header page: For some documents, the "previous version" is 
the Rec as of 20091027 (e.g. Document Overview or XML Serialization), 
for other documents, it is an unknown version as of 20120808 (e.g. 
RDF-Based Semantics, Profiles). This will probably change in the final 
version, but I mention it just to be save that it isn't missed.

08) Document header page: Different documents show different dates for 
the Review ("W3C Members please review..."). Again, this will probably 
be fixed in the PR version, but, again, I mention it to be save.

Cheers,
Michael
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 21:59:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 September 2012 21:59:46 GMT