Re: [WN] Review of Feb draft

Hi Benjamin,

> I would prefer the order I stated, but merging the sections into subsections +
> giving a simple title would be sufficient.

After reconsidering this I think you're right, I'll switch the (now 
sub)sections on the schema and the datamodel.

>>>7 can be put in appendix, section 6 must be put in appendix. 
>>
>>Sects. 5 and 7 explain how to query WN and the different available
>>versions. These seem important issues to the average user, so putting
>>these into appendices would diminish their visibility.
> 
> 
> OK but merge.

- Sect 5: explains how to query online and that CBDs are returned
	and the different URI forms. (This last subsection could be 	
	merged with Appendix G? Or the introduction could contain more
	info on the URI format? I see now there are 3 places where URI 
formats are explained. This seems too much.)

- Sect 6: explains the difference between Full and Basic versions

- Sect 7: explains the different versions (2.0, 2.1, ...), the
	redirection strategy and lists the downloadable files

Do you mean that these three sects should be merged into one? That 
would be a whole section "Selecting and Querying the appropriate WN 
version"? What ordering would you recommend?

Thanks,
Mark.

>>[1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html
>>[2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0076
>>[3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0088
>>[4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0092.html
>>
>>-- 
>>  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>>        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> 

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 19:18:50 UTC