W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 14 Dec 2002 03:05:49 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1039856750.6511.277.camel@dirk>

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 01:31, pat hayes wrote:
> Brian, Dan makes some good points that would be best fixed. How much 
> of a disaster would it be if I were to give you a revised snapshot by 
> say Monday EOW my time (evening your time)?? All the changes will be 
> link-fixings and small text-edits, nothing earthshaking. I also plan 
> to call out formal technical definitions, give them all anchors and 
> put in links from every term use to a glossary entry or definition, 
> throughout the text.

Don't put too much editorial make-work in the critical path
at this point, Pat. If you think that sort of pass
over the document will *help* the technical consistency,
perhaps it's worth the time. But if it distracts
from technical matters, those things can be done after last call.


> >(is that term anchored?
> >hmm... it's not in the glossary. I guess
> >the glossary is only for terms imported
> >from conventional literature, not for novel
> >terms in this spec. hmm... I hate having
> >to view-source to find anchor names; it would
> >be nice to have the terms introduced in this
> >spec collected somewhere.)
> OK, I could break out the definitions and give links to them, in the 
> style used in the XML Schema doc. Thats a bit more work. I can 
> probably get to that on Monday.

The XML Schema editors used automated tools to achive that style.

When I say "it would be nice", I just mean it would be nice.
I don't mean "put the schedule at risk to achieve this."

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 04:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC