- 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