- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:22:40 +0100
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
Hello, > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > Sent: 07 April 2009 15:16 > To: public-rdf-text@w3.org > Subject: a few more editorial comments > > > A few more: > > * in At Risk #3, I think you mean "rtfn:length" not "rdfn:compare" > Oops, sorry! I've fixed this. > * in At Risk #1, I don't quite understand what's at risk. Is it the > choice > of namespaces? Do you mean: > > "The selection of the rtfn > (http://www.w3.org/2009/rdf-text-functions) namespace > may change, based on feedback that these functions should > be merged into another namespace" > > That seems kind of problematic, since it's not a binary choice. > What is it that you think might change? What might it change to? > I've changed the text to this: The selection of the rtfn: (http://www.w3.org/2009/rdf-text-functions) prefix for the functions may change if community feedback suggests that a different prefix should be used. As for the alternatives, I believe RIF should answer that. > * In the intro: > > Furthermore, typed rdf:text literals that are semantically > ^^^^ remove > Oops, sorry! > > Great work, guys. > > -- Sandro I'm glad you like it! I am also quite happy with that the document turned out to be. Regards, Boris
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 16:23:55 UTC