Re: Thumbs up to publish classes as values

Brian,

Thanks a lot for the feedback! I think I've addressed all your comments  
in the draft that I am preparing for publication. Some comments below:

> Policy Issues
> =============
>
> - referring to real services e.g. http://isbn.nu/ and real books
> http://isbn.nu/0736809643
>
> - including references to specific tools e.g.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/ClassesAsValues-20040623/ 
> books1.
> owl  ends with
>
> [[
> <!-- Created with Protege (with OWL Plugin 1.1 beta, Build 126)
> http://protege.stanford.edu -->]]
>
> Also the xmlbase and default namespaces are defined in  
> http://protege...
>
> Including Owl abstract syntax.  Do we want to encourage proliferation  
> of
> another syntax?  Maybe its already in widespread use amongst  
> ontologists.

I didn't see any discussion of this at the telecon. I assume these  
policy issues remain unanswered at the moment, so I'll keep things  
unchanged

> Preferred changes before publication:
> =====================================
>
> Update open issues to remove concerns about dc:subject
>
> Update open issues with wording specifically requesting feedback on
> preferred option, e.g.
>
> [[
> Several DL compatible approaches are suggested in this document.  The  
> WG
> seeks to determine whether there is consensus on a preferred approach  
> that
> is DL compatible.  The WG therefore seeks input and feedback from the
> community on this question.
> ]]
>
> Update open issues to remove reference to "are approaches 2 and 4 the  
> same".
> I now think they are clearly different.

Done -- for all of the above.

> Other Comments
> ==============
>
> Dc:subject is hyperlinked to an RDFS document when the reader might  
> expect
> it to link to a human readable description of dc:subject.

What link would you suggest?

> My mozilla browser prints the figure in approach 2 twice, once  
> distorted.
> It appears ok when read on the screen.  And also in approach 5.  In  
> both
> cases the first occurrence of the figure is at the bottom of a page.
> Mozilla bug, I suspect.

I suspect so. I looked at the HTML source and found no difference in  
the way I put in the figures for all 5 cases. If anyone has the same  
problem and finds a way to fix it, I'll be happy to do that of course.

Natasha

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 07:46:54 UTC