W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:03:39 -0500
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BBF4931B-CFE0-447A-934F-99A0328120DC@ihmc.us>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
David, the Semantics document now has the text marked up in the way that you requested, as a definition. 

Pat

On Oct 22, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

> David, you didn't get a response from me on this:
> 
>> ISSUE-159 is almost satisfactory.  I emailed Pat Hayes off list about this, and have not yet seen a response:
>> [[
>> [Off list]
>> 
>> Hi Pat,
>> 
>> That looks good except that the font on the word "interpretation" is
>> wrong: it is not appearing in bold as other defined terms appear when
>> they are introduced.
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology
>> 
>> Could you please fix that so that I can send back my official response
>> saying that I am happy with this resolution?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> ]]
> 
> 
> because I never got that message :-). Now I have it, my response is as follows. 
> 
> The fonts are assigned by ReSpec depending upon the content markup. This is not marked as a definition. As the text states, all the definitions are given subsequent to this paragraph. There are no internal hyperlinks to this paragraph; all internal links from any use of "interpretation" would go to the appropriate definition of simple interpretation, RDF interpretation, etc.. If this were marked as a definition, then all these links would redirect to here rather than where they should redirect to. 
> 
> I am not sure if this is still an official correspondence, but as it is CCd to public-rdf-comments, let us treat it as one. Please reply to public-rdf-comments indicating whether you find this resolution of ISSUE-159, with my added explanation, above, acceptable.
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 18:04:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:58 UTC