RE: editorial corrections to Primer PR

[Held for moderator attention due to a novel 'From' address, sorry;
I've added this new address to the recognized list. --Ralph]

From: "Brian McBride" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>,
	<connolly@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NHENIIFPBIIGLIEEKIDAGEADCAAA.brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Subject: RE: editorial corrections to Primer PR

Hi Frank,

I hope its not too late to wish you a Happy New Year.

These all look like straightforward typo fixes to me.

I suggest:

   - prepare a corrected version of the document
   - we run a diff to check whats changed
   - As these are just typos, I'll review them
   - we can take a formal decision to approve the changes at this weeks
telecon
   - and offer them to the director for publication as a rec

DanC - that work for you?

Brian

ps: +1 on steadfastness

B

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
 > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Frank Manola
 > Sent: 09 January 2004 22:34
 > To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
 > Subject: editorial corrections to Primer PR
 >
 >
 >
 > I've just made a pass through the Primer PR and have discovered a few
 > editorial nits that should be corrected:
 >
 > *  in the TOC, sections 5.1 and 5.2 need to have "Defining" replaced by
 > "Describing" to be consistent with the actual section titles.
 >
 > *  in Section 2.2, there are two instances of "example.com" that need to
 > be changed to "example.org" to be consistent with the overall example
 >
 > *  in Section 3.3, there's an "is" in the last sentence that should be
 > "are".
 >
 > *  in Section 5.1, Figure 18 is upside down (class MotorVehicle should
 > be at the top, not the bottom).  This was fixed early last year in
 > response to a comment from PPS, but somehow an earlier version of the
 > figure got loaded into TR space and I missed it.  This is just a matter
 > of re-uploading the corrected figure.
 >
 > *  in Section 6.1, just above Example 32, there's a reference to Example
 >   30 that should be a reference to Example 31.
 >
 > *  in the References, the [LBASE] reference has the right URL but the
 > wrong date (it should cite the 10 October 2003 version).
 >
 > How should these changes be handled?
 >
 > --Frank
 >
 > [NB:  Now that I'm re-reading the Primer with a relatively "fresh" eye,
 > I've found lots of places that could have been written better, but I'm
 > steadfastly refraining from suggesting any further changes.  Enough
 > already!  Nevertheless, I really think the above fixes should be made.]
 >

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 08:15:20 UTC