W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2010

Re: rif pubs status

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 09:58:49 -0400
To: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3370.1273240729@waldron>

> Hi Sandro,
> 
> I had a quick look at all the docs. In addition to Jos's comments, I
> noticed the following:
> 
> All documents:
> - The organisation of the listing of the set of documents looks quite
> random: wouldn't it make more sense to have, e.g., first the Overview,
> then the dialects and dialect frameworks (Core, BLD, PRD, FLD), then DTB,
> then the combination (SWC, XML-data, OWL2RL), then the Tests?

Agreed; I'll fix this.

> In Core:
> - The only syntax that is explicitely said to be normative is the
> "mathematical english" (preamble section 2). I suggest that the section
> that contains the XSD be marked normative: "10 Appendix: XML Schema for
> RIF Core (Normative)";

I'm not sure about this.

> - In the EBNF for the condition language, names are defined as being
> UNICODESTRINGs, but that has been changed, at some point, in BLD, to be
> NCnames (btw, shouldn't all the XSD be changed to enforce that
> constraint?);

I'm not sure about this.

> - Is it a good idea for that same section to refer to another place for
> the schema: "XML schemas for the RIF-Core sublanguages are defined below
> and are also available here with additional examples.", where "here" is
> not an official W3C RIF location?

I'm pretty sure I should move all the schemas to w3.org.  That ensures
they'll stay available.  It makes them a little harder to edit, but any
staff member can do it as needed in the future.   For OWL we used:
     http://www.w3.org/2009/09/owl2-xml.xsd

Any objections?   Any suggestions for names, or shall I just use
     http://www.w3.org/2010/05/rif-bld.xsd  (etc)

> - Talking of location: is that a problem if the RIF namespace dereferences 
> a page that contains an XSD that includes an old version of the BLD
> schema: <xs:include schemaLocation="
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/ED-rif-bld-20080219/BLD.xsd"/>?

Yes.  See the previous statement.

> - In the acknowledgement section, I am affiliated with ILOG, instead of
> IBM (same in BLD, SWC, PRD, ;

Is that here:
    http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Regular_attendees
?   If so, just edit that.

(meanwhile, I'm not sure Changhai and Hassan, also listed as ILOG,
should still be listed as regularly attending....)

> In BLD:
> - The appendix containing the XSD refers also to a copy of the schema=20
> outside of W3C;

As above, let's fix this.

> - the EBNF reproduced in the XSD still has NAME ::=3D UNICODESTRING;

Again - not something I'm following.

> In FLD:
> - Repeated reference [OWL reference] in section 6.1;
> - Same question as for Core and BLD wrt the reference to another location=20
> for the XSD (in the preamble of section 7);
> - the EBNF reproduced in the XSD still has NAME ::=3D UNICODESTRING;

Michael, Harold ?

> - There is no "Acknowledgement" section in FLD: is that a problem?

No.   If course it's nice for the editors to thank folks.

> In DTB:
> - No acknowledgement section, either;

Not formally a problem.

> - Format of the change log is different from the other docs: is that a=20
> problem?

No, but it'd be nice to see changed.

> In PRD:
> - The last sentence before example 9.1, in section 9 (Presentation=20
> syntax), is wrong: "Names are Unicode character sequences. Variables are=20
> composed of UNICODESTRING symbols prefixed with a ?-sign ". As mentionned=20
> earlier, names have been changed, at some point, to NCNames (the EBNF has=20
> been updated, but not that sentence, nor the fragment of EBNF as comments=20
> in the XSD);
> - In the change log, the link to the Feb12 draft is missing: "Changes=20
> since the [ draft of February 12th, 2010] ".

It doesn't really need to be a link, if people are feeling lazy.

> in Tests:
> - No acknowledgement section;
> - The change log lists changes since the  version 12 Dec 2008, without=20
> mention of the Oct 1, 2009, version: is that a problem?

It'd be good to clear up.   Shouldn't be too hard, given:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-test-20100511/diff-from-20091001

> in XML-data:
> - No acknowledgement section;

Want to add one?

> - No section numbering;

I added __NUMBEREDHEADINGS__ to the wiki; should be fixed on the next go round.

> - The change log does not mention the previous version explicitly: is that 
> a problem?

Not a big one.

> in OWL2RL:
> - No acknowledgement section;
> - OWL2 specs are listed as CR in the reference section;
> - In the change log, the reference to the previous draft is not linked: is =
> that a problem?

(same)

> That's all I found, as I browsed through the docs...

Thanks!

> Sandro, how do we do the corrections, if you think that corrections are
> needed at this point?

Please, folks, go ahead and update the wiki versions to fix this stuff
until Monday morning (US time) or so, then I'll do another mechanical
check through, and set up the schema stuff.

Thanks again.

   -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 13:58:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 May 2010 13:58:53 GMT