Thumbs up to publish classes as values

I'm reviewing 

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ClassesAsValues-20040623/

This gets a thumbs up to publish from me.  There are some policy issues for
the tc/wg to consider and some minor changes I'd recommend before
publication.  I'd be happy to leave the latter to the editor's discretion.

Brian


Policy Issues
=============

- referring to real services e.g. http://isbn.nu/ and real books
http://isbn.nu/0736809643

- including references to specific tools e.g.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ClassesAsValues-20040623/books1.
owl  ends with

[[
<!-- Created with Protege (with OWL Plugin 1.1 beta, Build 126)
http://protege.stanford.edu -->]]

Also the xmlbase and default namespaces are defined in http://protege...

Including Owl abstract syntax.  Do we want to encourage proliferation of
another syntax?  Maybe its already in widespread use amongst ontologists.



Preferred changes before publication:
=====================================

Update open issues to remove concerns about dc:subject

Update open issues with wording specifically requesting feedback on
preferred option, e.g.

[[
Several DL compatible approaches are suggested in this document.  The WG
seeks to determine whether there is consensus on a preferred approach that
is DL compatible.  The WG therefore seeks input and feedback from the
community on this question.
]]

Update open issues to remove reference to "are approaches 2 and 4 the same".
I now think they are clearly different.


Quick fixes
===========

Typo, Abstract: ... 

Any restriction on using clashes as values ...
                         ^^^^^^^

Typo, Considerations when choosing Approch 4

 ... The subject of the book is a one or more ...
                               ^^^


Other Comments
==============

Dc:subject is hyperlinked to an RDFS document when the reader might expect
it to link to a human readable description of dc:subject.

My mozilla browser prints the figure in approach 2 twice, once distorted.
It appears ok when read on the screen.  And also in approach 5.  In both
cases the first occurrence of the figure is at the bottom of a page.
Mozilla bug, I suspect.

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 13:37:04 UTC