- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:49:37 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
New subject for the benefit of Tracker... Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: public-owl-wg@w3.org > From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> > Date: 14 March 2008 14:20:07 GMT > To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org> > Subject: Oops and review comments > > > Oops, I just did some reviewing of the XML Syntax and I think I'm > slated for the fragments doc. Or rather I wanted only one :) But I > see I have actions for both. Sigh. > > Well, I've done some reviewing of the XML Syntax document. I wanted > to remind reviewers that you can inline comments using the review > template e.g.,: > > {{Review|~~~~|I'd make the prior paragraph a temporary editors > note. It shouldn't appear in the final spec.}} > > (the ~~~~ gets auto expanded with your name and a timestamp, a la: > {{Review|[[User:BijanParsia|BijanParsia]] 08:31, 14 March 2008 > (EDT)|I'd make the prior paragraph a temporary editors note. It > shouldn't appear in the final spec.}} > ) > > One thing that would be nice is if I could generate a text file of > my review comments (with back pointers) so that I could email them > to the list with more "overally" comments.... > > My overall comment is that it's fine to go. I'd really like the > examples removed or the owl11xml prefixes removed (since they make > the examples illegible). With the primer there's some question as > to whether we should have examples at all. Structuring it a bit > more like the RDF Mapping (i.e., terse, with a description of the > methodology of the derivation of the schema, then the schema might > be enough.) I wouldn't mind a somewhat richer introduction. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:50:20 UTC