Some editorial comments

[jimjyang]

1. Section Attribute definition and usage, Examples: the text says that the ePO- ontology uses the "type" attribute converted to a dependency connector, but the figure doesn't show this.
2. Section Multiplicity of attributes and connectors, Examples: 2a. [0..\*] --> [0..*] 2b. The text says "right" and "left", but the figures are aligned vertically.
3. Section Limited (OWL 2) expressivity, second last paragraph before the examples, see the bolded and italic part of the following sentence which should be corrected: "The need for setting property domain and range constraints shall be is better fulfilled by the data shapes expressed in SHACL language."
4. Section URI dereferencing, second last paragraph, this sentence is incomplete: "The other representations/formats."
5. Section References, the link for [puri-gov-eu] points to joinup in general, not that particular publication.

[csnyulas]

Points 2, 3 and 5 have been addressed with the above commits.

Regarding point 1, it is not that straightforward to show how the relationship cccev:type is converted to a dependency connector, because in fact in ePO the cccev:type property is reused only at the level of the cccev:Citerion subclass of the cccev:Requirement class, not at the level of the cccev:Requirement class itself.

@costezki should we add this screen shot, or should we try, perhaps, to provide a different example. For example, we could should how the cccev:confidentialityLevelType propety is converted into a dependency connector in case of the cccev:Evidence class. Although this example is not that nice (missing some of the complexity and relevance of the original), at least it is cleaner and clearer.

In CCCEV:

reused in ePO:

[csnyulas]

Regarding point 4 : "Section URI dereferencing, second last paragraph, this sentence is incomplete: "The other representations/formats.""

@bertvannuffelen or @costezki do you know what was the idea that we wanted to convey here? "The HTML representation should have landing points based on the used fragment identifier. The other representations/formats. Further technical details can be found in "Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" [rdf-pub]."

I looked at the edit history, and this sentence was always incomplete. If neither of you has a recollection or idea of what we want to say here, we should drop this sentence.

[csnyulas]

We are closing this issue, as all 5 points have been addressed (see related commits). Thank you for the feedback and very onto the point suggestions, @jimjyang .