- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:46:38 -0500
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Thanks for the comments, Boris and Bijan; I believe I've addressed the issues you raised. Also all the ones I listed, except: > > -- some of the text in the 'Status of this Document' is just > > placeholder text > > -- there are no 'latest version' links and the co-References aren't quite done (authors/editors are omitted). (I'm handling co-References by automatically replacing the reference entries to other wiki documents in the same publication set, with generated text. What's on the wiki in that spot doesn't matter except for what link it contains.) See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl-syntax-20080101/ http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl-semantics-20080101/ http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl-mapping-to-rdf-20080101/ The biggest remaining issue, I think, is exactly how the "latest version" links work. This is a tricky issue, which I hope to talk to some of my co-workers about as they return from vacation. It's all about how W3C documents are sort-of updated on the web while also not changing. For example, look at: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl-syntax-20080101/#References and see how the "latest version" URIs for both "[OWL 1.1 Semantics]" and "[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]" are the same. This is probably not right at this stage -- they are quite different documents -- but it's not clear what's better. In a sense, they should converge. Five years from now, they may both be superceded by a now "owl-semantics" document, right? Anyway, I don't think the WG needs to pay a lot of attention to this; hopefully I'll get it sorted out shortly. -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 06:48:20 UTC