- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:01:15 -0400 (EDT)
- To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov
From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> Subject: Re: examples in NF&R Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:51:29 +0200 > 2009/4/29 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>: >> A quick look at NF&R indicates that the example still need to be fixed >> up. >> >> 1/ As agreed on earlier, the examples should use the same syntax >> switching mechanism as the other documents. The Primer people are >> currently working on making this work really well, so they should be >> consulted. > > 1) As said in my email, I used the same switching mechanism as the > SS&FS (but at the moment made it only on F1 to F4). > Does you mean that the syntax mechanism in the SS&FS is not fine ? > Why ? My mistake - I didn't see that. F1-F4 work very well, and this mechanism should be used throughout. The only possible extra thing that might be added would be to not show examples if neither syntax is shown, but I don't think that this needs to be done. > 2) We cannot use the same mechanism as the Primer (simple switch > buttons), because the optional syntaxes are within the Examples which > are themselves optional. This is the same case for SS&FS. It's why I > used the same mechanism as SS&FS. Good point. >> 2/ The examples are all syntactically incorrect as they use >> "unqualified" names in the Functional Syntax, which are no longer >> permitted. The easiest fix would be to use the empty prefix, which >> just involves putting a colon at the beginning of each name in the >> examples. > > I precisely asked you twice, and was waiting for the answer to know > whether I have to put a colon. > Thanks for the clarification, will add. Good. >> peter >> > > > > -- > Christine peter
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 19:01:09 UTC