Re: Last thing before LC

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> The only thing "at risk" about rtfn is the rather short edit distance 
> from rtfm.  Let's see how many comments we get about that.

:-) fair enough, no prob in changing the prefix acronym ;-)

Axel

> -Chris
> 
> Axel Polleres wrote:
>> Last things before LC:
>>
>> In the RIF teleconf, we just had approved to drop former "At risk 
>> issue 1" about the rtfn: namespace. Lacking alternative proposals, we 
>> think that the only viable solution at this point is going with our 
>> own namespace, especially for the extractor functions.
>>
>> We left in at risk feature 1 and 2 (formerly 2 and 3) and the group 
>> seemed to agree that the doc can go to LC from that.
>>
>> Given feedback on rtfn:compare and rtfn:length (which we should 
>> probably solicit explicitly in the official announcement) we may 
>> decide whether to leave or drop them for the final document.
>>
>> Axel
>>
>> Boris Motik wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 09:35:45 UTC