Re: Overview document

thx for the comments.  info below in context:
There is a new version with updates and a new date of today - august 5.
It is fine with me for you to take write lock for any appropriate changes.


Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> -
>A few nits, looking the version dated "30 July".
>There's a typo (missing ">")in the markup at the end of section 1.3,
>so it renders for me as:
>   The details of these and other constraints on OWL DL and OWL Lite
>   are explained in .  

>The source seems be using ^M newlines, which confuses at least one of
>my browsers into rendered the second sentence of the introduction
>    The Document Roadmap sectionbelow describes 
>                                ^ no space
i changed that particular one so that the line breaks at a different 
place (not after a </a>) but I am not sure about the right solution in 
general.  I also once again deleted all of the control ms that had been 
The versions of the document i generated did not have control ms in 
them.  But something about the
process of getting these on w3c site and getting them back puts in the 
control ms.  i stopped taking them out since every time i got a version 
back from frank or from a w3c version, it had them.
i had checked my process so that i did as little as possible - i view 
the html page with either a very current netscape or explorer browser, 
do a saveas,
and then edit the file and use ftp to put it onto a server.  Previously 
people said that was an appropriate methodology.
I attempted to make lines end with things that would not be as 
problematic if the control ms get inserted again.

>I wonder how much has changed since this document was last validated?
my edits have been minimal in formating so as to introduce hopefully no 
validation problems.  the only formatting i did was to put in the 
required updates to section headings (and the appropriate updates to the 
listing) that were added.
I did the sweep of removing the control ms though if that matters.  
Frank also touched the document since the last validation but i thought 
it was validated before i got it but am not sure.

>The links within the document (like that "Document Roadmap") link go
>to the "latest" version, instead of being relative to the current
>document.  That is, it's
>   <A HREF="">
>when it should be
>   <A HREF="#s1.1">
I changed this back to the relative form just requested  but just so you 
know, i previously had them relative and
was asked  to expand them to the full hard full links.  In this change i 
also changed not only section number references but the links to the 
terms in 2.1, 2.2, 3, and 4 to be relative as well.  If there is a 
request for it to go back to another form, it is ok with me if you just 
want to do those changes.

>After sleeping on it, I think I'd be happier if Requirements were
>actually mentioned in the roadmap, instead of in the paragraph after
>the roadmap.   Would that be okay?
i have no strong opinion.   I will just give history:

The roadmap was supposed to give the suggested ordering for reading 
(overview, guide, then s&s, then tests got added later).. 
requirements may not be on many people's critical path for reading and 
was originally pointed to in context where interested readers might be 
expected to look for it.  That made sense to me but having it in the 
listing is also ok.

We also have:

The suggested reading order of these documents is as given, since they 
have been listed in increasing degree of technical content.

at the end of the roadmap.

If it is desirable to put requirements in this listing that is fine.  I 
would just drop the suggested reading order sentence then and have 
requirements at the end of the listing.

>     -- sandro
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 22:18:52 UTC