W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: ACTION-920 completed

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:10:18 -0400
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
cc: "RIF (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20990.1254273018@waldron>

Hmmm.  It looks like no one has reviewed Axel's edits.  Ooops.

I think we're still okay to publish it, but the level of review is a bit
less than our usual standard.

> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=DTB&diff=11060&oldid=11006

This appears to be just a few of the edits he did as part of ACTION-920.

> I went through the list predicates and functions and adapted them as  
> follows:
> 
> * I added formal mappings where this was possible more or less  
> straightforwardly in my opinion;
>    I agree with Sandro that it doesn't make sense to add a formal  
> mapping for the last 4 functions
>    (union, distinct-values, intersection, except) but I checked these  
> informal mappings again and am
>    fine with them. I left the informal explanations as well, just to  
> remain (hopefully) least intrusive.

Sigh.  Well, I can no longer read this section, and can no longer vouch
for its accuracy.  I hope someone who likes subscripts will check Axel's
work.

I think the bits that involve positions are wrong, though, since they
leave out negative indexing (although they refer to it).

> * I changed the examples to presentation syntax, since I wouldn't be  
> to happy an undefined
>    syntax in the examples; even if PS isn't normative, it is  
> sufficiently specified.
> 
> * I did some more editorial edits, like rewordigns in Section 4.11.1  
> and 4.11.2, which I'd appreciate to be checked.

Those look fine.

> * From my point of view, this is all fine now, except one open issue  
> noted with an editor's note in Section 4.11.4.4:
>    It seems that the behavior of func:sublist for ?stop before ?start  
> is not specifier.

I think this is just like any other arguments-out-of-domain situation; I
don't see a need for special handling, except that the domain
restriction should state that the adjusted-for-negative-indexing stop
position must be greater than the adjusted-for-negative-indexing start
position.

> * BTW: Sorry about my forgetfulness, but did we decide on dropping the  
> Editor's note on rdf:PlainLiteral (Section 4.10) already?

I think so, but at this point I'd rather just leave it.

> Apart from the last two points, DTB should be ready to go, hope I  
> didn't forget anything more.

I think, under the circumstances, it's okay to ship with these two
editor's notes, even though we usually try to avoid it.

    -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 01:10:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 September 2009 01:10:23 GMT