- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:09:46 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, 'Sandro Hawke' <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-text@w3.org
The only thing "at risk" about rtfn is the rather short edit distance from rtfm. Let's see how many comments we get about that. -Chris Axel Polleres wrote: > Last things before LC: > > In the RIF teleconf, we just had approved to drop former "At risk issue > 1" about the rtfn: namespace. Lacking alternative proposals, we think > that the only viable solution at this point is going with our own > namespace, especially for the extractor functions. > > We left in at risk feature 1 and 2 (formerly 2 and 3) and the group > seemed to agree that the doc can go to LC from that. > > Given feedback on rtfn:compare and rtfn:length (which we should probably > solicit explicitly in the official announcement) we may decide whether > to leave or drop them for the final document. > > Axel > > Boris Motik wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org >>> [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org] >>> On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke >>> Sent: 07 April 2009 15:16 >>> To: public-rdf-text@w3.org >>> Subject: a few more editorial comments >>> >>> >>> A few more: >>> >>> * in At Risk #3, I think you mean "rtfn:length" not "rdfn:compare" >>> >> >> Oops, sorry! I've fixed this. >> >>> * in At Risk #1, I don't quite understand what's at risk. Is it the >>> choice >>> of namespaces? Do you mean: >>> >>> "The selection of the rtfn >>> (http://www.w3.org/2009/rdf-text-functions) namespace >>> may change, based on feedback that these functions should >>> be merged into another namespace" >>> >>> That seems kind of problematic, since it's not a binary choice. >>> What is it that you think might change? What might it change to? >>> >> >> I've changed the text to this: >> >> The selection of the rtfn: (http://www.w3.org/2009/rdf-text-functions) >> prefix >> for the functions may change if community feedback suggests that a >> different >> prefix should be used. >> >> As for the alternatives, I believe RIF should answer that. >> >>> * In the intro: >>> > Furthermore, typed rdf:text literals that are semantically >>> ^^^^ remove >>> >> >> Oops, sorry! >> >>> Great work, guys. >>> >>> -- Sandro >> >> I'm glad you like it! I am also quite happy with that the document >> turned out to >> be. >> >> Regards, >> >> Boris >> >> > > -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 03:10:34 UTC