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

Re: [SWC] ACTION6492: review changes in SWC

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:27:52 +0200
Message-ID: <488F1AD8.7010605@inf.unibz.it>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

> - in the middle of the 5th paragraph in section 4, I had to read the 
> following sentence several times before I could parse it:
> "In the DL species, classes and properties are directly interpreted as 
> subsets of and binary relations over the domain."
> 
> Wouldn't it be better rewritten, e.g.:
> "In the DL species, classes and properties are directly interpreted as 
> subsets of the doamin, and binary relations over the domain, respectively"?

I changed it from the latter to the former at one point because of a 
review comment, so I am reluctant to change it back.

> 
> I did not do the edit myself, lest I completely misunderstood the 
> sentence :-)
> 
> - in section 5.2, the text says that "if ... the document must be 
> rejected", "if ... the combination ... must be interpreted ..." (twice) 
> and "if ... the combination ... may be interpreted ...". Should the 
> document make reference to RFC 2119 for the use of "must" and "may"? On 
> the other hand, there is no conformance clause...

There is indeed no conformance clauses, so I don't think it makes much 
sense to reference the RFC.

Best, Jos

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
   - Donald Foster
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 13:28:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:52 GMT