Hi Guido, Monica & editors of the LegalRuleML Core Spec,
In preparing the draft for publication, we have run into a few issues that we will need you all to fix. There is no need to go through approval again and we would fix these ourselves if they were not so deeply integrated into the package. Here's what we need:
These are not going to work. For one thing, we won't be publishing /csd01/ but rather going straight to work on /csprd01/. For another, we wouldn't want to use the filename as a directory level (that is .../legalruleml-core-spec-v1.0-csd01/...). We just want to go directly to the next directory level - e.g. .../xsd/...
The most convenient way to handle this is to create these as relative links instead. In other words, make the link to xsd/xsd-basic/lrml-basic.xsd. Paul is looking for some examples of this used in other specs.
- We also note that a number of those links appear in footnotes. Functionally, that should be ok. We do want to point out though that the first 39 or so footnotes are in superscript font and so almost impossible to read. Starting somewhere around footnote 40, they switch to normal text. You may want to fix those first 38 or so.
- In the two zip files, there are multiple directories. For example, in the normative...zip file, there are directories named: xslt, rdfs, relaxng, and xsd-schema. Those will be the tops of your relative links unless you want to put them all in a higher level directory such as .../normative/... or some such. Whatever makes the linking more straightforward in my opinion.
- in xslt/lrml-xml/normalizer/, there is an .htacess file. I don't know if that is just there because it was hidden when preparing the zip file or whether there is some reason for it. However, that's not allowed on the docs.oasis-open.org
If you have something you are trying to accomplish there, let's talk. If you didn't mean for it to be there, we will just delete it.
- We noted that the Acknowledgements and Revision History appendices are not numbered and that everything else is labelled Annex.
Is there some reason for this? We realize that Annex may have a special meaning or that it simply may be the convention of the RuleML specs. Could you put the Acknowledgement section after all the Annexes and before the Revision History and we could then simply label those Appendix A and B?
- Also, any reason that we should not publish the editable source version as .docx? Since you are editing in MS Office and not in HTML, we'll need to include the editable source in the cover page material. We'd like to do that as .docx unless you have a reason why we shouldn't.
That's it. Please let us know if you have any questions. You can just make these changes and fixes and send the finished documents to us and we'll proceed from there. No need to go back through the whole approval process.
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information societyhttp://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393