Re: US / UK dialect in OWL docs

> I made a quick search for all "isa" "ise" "isi" "iso" "isu" "isy" 
> occuring in the documents.
> 
> 
> I found these words not in US english:
>
> 
> In "Conformance and Test Cases":
> Sect. 2.2, 1st example: "serialiastion"
> Sect. 2.2, parag. after example: "serialisation"
> 
> 
> In "New Features and Rationales":
> Sect. 2.2.5: "optimisations"
> Sect. 3.2: "synthesises"
> Sect. 5.14: "organise", "realised"
> 
> 
> In NF&R, I see that there are several occurences of "pair-wise" and 
> sometimes "pairwise":
> Sect. 2.1.1: "pair-wise"
> Sect. 2.1.2: "pair-wise" (twice)
> Sect. 2.1.2, 1st example: "pairwise"
> Sect. 2.2.4: "pair-wise"
> Sect. 2.4.1: "pairwise"

I know they're not in m-w.com, but they're still okay in US English.

Seems like we should stick with "pair-wise", avoiding "pairwise".

> In "Primer":
> Sect. 1: "surprising" (twice) -- according to Merriam-Webster, both 
> variants are OK in US english
> Sect. 2: "surprising", "surprised"
> Sect. 3: "surprise"
> Sect. 4: "surprising"

To my american eye, "surprising" is good and "surprizing" looks wrong;
let's leave these as is.

Someone should probably use a spell-checker.  You can append ",spell" to
the URIs, but it doesn't let you edit the dictionary, so IMO it's
unusable.

    -- Sandro

> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Antoine Zimmermann
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Galway
> IDA Business Park
> Lower Dangan
> Galway, Ireland
> antoine.zimmermann@deri.org
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 01:42:58 UTC