W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - replies to Jos' replies on part 1 of the review.

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:00:55 +0200
Message-ID: <48737317.5040305@inf.unibz.it>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


>>> The set of data types you consider for the RIF document.
>>
>> Ok ,then write it:
>>
>> "Definition. Let T be the set of considered datatypes. A datatype map D
>> is a conforming datatype map if it satisfies the following conditions:"
>>
>> -->
>> "Definition. Let T be the set of considered datatypes. A datatype map D
>> is \emph{conforming with T} if it satisfies the following conditions:"
>>
> 
> In that case the set of considered data types needs to be made explicit 
> whenever referring to conforming datatype maps.  From my point of view, 
> this would be clutter making the definitions harder to read.
> Besides, it is already obvious from the definition what the datatype map 
> conforms with.
> 

Reading again the definitions throughout the document, I realized that 
in some cases it is indeed not clear what the considered data types are, 
because there is not always a combination in the context.

So, I will adopt your proposal and always make explicit what the 
datatypes are that the datatype map conforms with.

Best, Jos


-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
   - Isaac Asimov
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 14:01:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT