- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:27:52 +0200
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> - in the middle of the 5th paragraph in section 4, I had to read the > following sentence several times before I could parse it: > "In the DL species, classes and properties are directly interpreted as > subsets of and binary relations over the domain." > > Wouldn't it be better rewritten, e.g.: > "In the DL species, classes and properties are directly interpreted as > subsets of the doamin, and binary relations over the domain, respectively"? I changed it from the latter to the former at one point because of a review comment, so I am reluctant to change it back. > > I did not do the edit myself, lest I completely misunderstood the > sentence :-) > > - in section 5.2, the text says that "if ... the document must be > rejected", "if ... the combination ... must be interpreted ..." (twice) > and "if ... the combination ... may be interpreted ...". Should the > document make reference to RFC 2119 for the use of "must" and "may"? On > the other hand, there is no conformance clause... There is indeed no conformance clauses, so I don't think it makes much sense to reference the RFC. Best, Jos > > Cheers, > > Christian > > -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald Foster
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 13:28:08 UTC