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

Re: [SWC] ACTION-492: review changes in SWC

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:56:24 +0200
Message-ID: <488F2188.1050601@inf.unibz.it>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>



Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> That's ACTION-492, not 6492.
> 
> Btw, I forgot to mention that the tables in sections 2 (table 1), 5.1.1, 
>  8.1.3 (Rsimple), 8.1.4 (Rrdf), 8.1.5 (Rrdfs) and 8.2.3 (Normalizing and 
> Embedding OWL DLP) do ont scale down to print or small screens. Neither 
> do most of the productions in 8.2.1.
> 
> I do not know what can be done about it, or whether something ought to 
> be done, but that makes the tables and productions useless when the 
> document is printed :-(

Yes, something can be done, and I am working on it.  Basically, these 
tables all rely on fixed text (using the pre tag).  I have now in the 
process of making the text flow naturally, where this makes sense.
But, we need to keep in mind that we are not responsible for how 
individual applications render a page.  For example, when printing from 
my browser I only have problems with two of the tables you mention.

Best, Jos


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
>  Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
>> Jos,
>>
>> I reviewed SWC, as per ACTION-492, and found no objection to 
>> publishing it as LC.
>>
>> I have only two comments, one of them a tiny one:
>>
>> - 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 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...
>>
>> 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 13:56:37 GMT

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