[Copying www-archive instead]
Hi Pat,
On 10/22/2013 08:58 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
David, you didn't get a response from me on this:
ISSUE-159 is almost satisfactory. I emailed Pat Hayes off list
about this, and have not yet seen a response: [[ [Off list]
Hi Pat,
That looks good except that the font on the word "interpretation"
is wrong: it is not appearing in bold as other defined terms appear
when they are introduced.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology
Could you please fix that so that I can send back my
>> official response
saying that I am happy with this resolution?
Thanks, David ]]
because I never got that message :-). Now I have it, my response is
as follows.
The fonts are assigned by ReSpec depending upon the content markup.
This is not marked as a definition.
Right, but it *should* be marked as a definition. It says: "An
interpretation is . . . " and then it goes on to discuss specific kinds
of interpretations, which of course are defined elsewhere. The fact
that specific kinds of interpretations are also defined elsewhere does
not in any way nullify the fact that this paragraph defines the generic
notion of interpretation.
As the text states, all the
definitions are given subsequent to this paragraph. There are no
internal hyperlinks to this paragraph; all internal links from any
use of "interpretation" would go to the appropriate definition of
simple interpretation, RDF interpretation, etc.. If this were marked
as a definition, then all these links would redirect to here rather
than where they should redirect to.
Are you sure about that? When I look at the source I see HTML like this:
[[
<p>A particular such set of semantic assumptions is called a
<dfn>semantic extension</dfn>. Each <a>semantic extension</a> defines an
<dfn>entailment regime</dfn> of entailments which are valid under that
extension. RDFS, described later in this document, is one such
<a>semantic extension</a>. We will refer to an entailment regime by
names such as <em> RDFS entailment</em>, <em>D-entailment</em>, etc. </p>
]]
I would be pretty surprised if an occurrence of "<a>simple
interpretation</a>" would be linked to "<dfn>interpretation</dfn>"
instead of being linked only to "<dfn>simple interpretation</dfn>".
In any case, it looks wrong as is, so if it needs to be manually bolded
in order to appear like a definition then that would also be a
reasonable work-around. But bolding is important to help readers both
find it and realize that it is a definition.
Thanks,
David
I am not sure if this is still an official correspondence, but as it
is CCd to public-rdf-comments, let us treat it as one. Please reply
to public-rdf-comments indicating whether you find this resolution of
ISSUE-159, with my added explanation, above, acceptable.
Pat
------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC
(850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416
office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL
32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
(preferred) [email protected] http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
