Final Model Specification - General Comments

Hello all,

I went through the final model specification and I have some general
proposals about how we should continue with the document

   1. We need to be consistent when referring to properties and classes
   from the model. Currently we have "lexical entry" and "LexicalEntry" and
   "Lexical Entry", in either bold, standard or fixed-width fonts.
   2. Many of the definitions of properties are given in RDF code. Even
   worse these do not wrap properly so even on my large screen I have to
   scroll right to read them

To these two problems I propose a simple solution:

   - Add a glossary to the end of the document with the canonical
   definition of that term. Whenever a model term is used, write it as a link
   to the glossary (and in lowercase letters)

A further problem is

   - There are many code examples and they are difficult to read. I will
   look into seeing if I can automatically convert these examples to XML,
   images etc.
   - We should avoid code for axiomatizations of classes and properties.
   - We should use a consistent naming in examples. I would propose as
   follows, we use "ex" as the namespace for all examples, followed the lemma
   form with underscores for spaces, and if the element is not a lexical entry
   a descriptor as the fragment. In other words, such as
   ex:intangible_assets ontolex:canonicalForm
   ex:intangible_assets#Canonical_Form .
   - We should avoid blank nodes in all examples

Finally, in the body certain abbreviations (e.g., "synsem", "varterm") are
used. I don't think this is informative and as I guess these are intended
to be the namespace abbreviations, I also think these are not normative.
Can we remove them from the document, except for in a section where we will
describe the namespaces used by the model?

Regards,
John