LC3 Responses/DB8

From OWL
Revision as of 16:24, 14 September 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: daniel@fgm.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Daniel Barclay

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Sep/0012.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Adding such links might be useful, and we will consider doing so if time permits.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Ian Horrocks
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL


In the grammar productions, references to terminals and non-terminals
are not hypertext links to the productions defining those terminals
and non-terminals (or to the sections containing those productions).

(E.g., in section 7, in the DataRange production, the text "Datatype" is
not a links to the DataType production in section 5.2 (or to section
5.2 itself).)

It would be helpful if they were links, and links between the grammar
production seem like prime candidates for linking.


(It would also be helpful, though of lower priority, if in the examples
the example axioms (e.g., their key/reserved words) were links also.
Since making them all regularly-formatted links would presumably clutter
things too much (re readability), maybe they could be half-hidden links
(that are highlighted only when "moused over").)