# ltablex caption causing errors

This code seems to work without \caption

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{ltablex}
\usepackage{caption}
\newcolumntype{Y}[1]{>{\hsize=#1\hsize}X}

\begin{document}

\label{table:OntologiesComparison}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{} >{\raggedright}Y{0.6} Y{1.2} Y{1.2} @{}}
\caption{Ontologies Comparison}\\

\toprule
Ontologies & Details & Limitations\\
\midrule

\textbf{ccsla}, \textbf{ccpricing}, \textbf{ccinstances}, \textbf{ccregions},\textbf{dmcc-schema}, \textbf{ccdm}.
&
Features:
SLA, Price, VM instance feature and Region, Vendor. Data mining experiments parameters.
\bigskip

Availability:
Schemas and data are online. Each schema has one or two examples modelling Services from Amazon. One exception is \textbf{ccdm} which has 6 examples of different ML experiments.
&
\textbf{ccpricing} can not handle the complexity of most common price options, like cost of OS to be installed on the VM, network data transfer cost differed by destination and usage, snapshot storage costs and etc. \textbf{ccinstances} does not allow unit to be specified in data, has to be fixed for each property.
\\
\hline
Cloud Service Description Ontology (CSO)
&
Features:
Cloud Price, VM instance feature and Region, Vendor.
\bigskip

Availability:
None of the schema, data or source code is accessible.
&
Project resources link is no longer accessible.
Formal ontology definition is not available, only top level topology is shown.
Over simplified service definition, for example in the experiment "Network" is assigned a number between 0 and 100 without unit. How could this represent data transfer size and latency all together? It could be daily or yearly usage, without knowing destination, translate this to cost is impossible.
\\
\hline
mOSAIC project
&
Features:
Actor/Consumer/Vendor, SLA, QoS, Functional/Non-Functional Property, Application Layer, Component.
\bigskip

Availability:
The OWL file is not available, no example. One picture shows InfrastructureSoftware and Computational class, but did not show their subclasses, without the OWL file or example, we could not tell the difference between these two classes.
&
This work focused on Cloud services negotiation (i.e. between costumers and providers) and composition (i.e. by an administrator). Their ontology is different in scope to our, i.e. it does not cover price.
Only top level concepts are covered, for example QoS which is too broad, which would require us to defined out specific class any way. to be used
\\
\hline
OWL Ontology for the Lifecycle of IT Services in the Cloud
&
This ontology models the steps involved in the phases of discovery, negotiation, composition, and consumption of Cloud services. The modelling of Cloud service features is very limited, and their link to an example of a storage service is no longer accessible.
Features:
Actor/Consumer/Vendor, SLA, QoS, Functional/Non-Functional Property, Application Layer, Component.
\bigskip

Availability:
The OWL file is not available, no example.
&
This work focused on Cloud services negotiation (i.e. between costumers and providers) and composition (i.e. by an administrator). Their ontology is different in scope to ours.
Only top level concepts are covered, there is no class property
\\
\bottomrule

\end{tabularx}

\end{document}


I have tried the method in Tabularx and short caption causes error

\ifx\caption\savecaption
\caption[short caption]{long caption {\label{lit_review}}}
\fi


It compiles but doesn't show the caption.

I have followed the example here https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/165797/34958

try the following:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[margin=25mm]{geometry}
\usepackage{booktabs, ltablex}
\newcolumntype{R}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X} % <---

\begin{document}
\begingroup
\small
\setlength\tabcolsep{4pt}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}    >{\hsize=0.4\hsize}R % <---
>{\hsize=1.3\hsize}X % <---
>{\hsize=1.3\hsize}X % <---
@{}
}
\caption{My caption}
\label{my-label}                            \\
\toprule
Ontology    &   Details &   Limitations     \\
\midrule
\caption{My caption (cont.)}                \\
\toprule
Ontology    &   Details &   Limitations     \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{r}{\footnotesize\textit{continue on the next page}}\\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
\textbf{ccsla}, \textbf{ccpricing}, \textbf{ccinstances}, \textbf{ccregions}, \textbf{dmcc-schema}, \textbf{ccdm}.
SLA, Price, VM instance feature and Region, Vendor. Data mining experiments parameters.

\medskip
Schemas and data are online. Each schema has one or two examples modelling Services from Amazon. One exception is \textbf{ccdm} which has 6 examples of different ML experiments.
&
\textbf{ccpricing} can not handle the complexity of most common price options, like cost of OS to be installed on the VM, network data transfer cost differed by destination and usage, snapshot storage costs and etc.

\textbf{ccinstances} does not allow unit to be specified in data, has to be fixed for each property.
\\  \midrule
Cloud Service Description Ontology (CSO)
&
Cloud Price, VM instance feature and Region, Vendor.

\medskip
None of the schema, data or source code is accessible.
&
Project resources link is no longer accessible.
Formal ontology definition is not available, only top level topology is shown.

Over simplified service definition, for example in the experiment "Network" is assigned a number between 0 and 100 without unit. How could this represent data transfer size and latency all together? It could be daily or yearly usage, without knowing destination, translate this to cost is impossible.
\\  \midrule
mOSAIC project
&
Features:
Actor/Consumer/Vendor, SLA, QoS, Functional/Non-Functional Property, Application Layer, Component.

\medskip
Availability:
The OWL file is not available, no example. One picture shows InfrastructureSoftware and Computational class, but did not show their subclasses, without the OWL file or example, we could not tell the difference between these two classes.
&
This work focused on Cloud services negotiation (i.e. between costumers and providers) and composition (i.e. by an administrator). Their ontology is different in scope to our, i.e. it does not cover price.

Only top level concepts are covered, for example QoS which is too broad, which would require us to defined out specific class any way. to be used
\\  \midrule
OWL Ontology for the Lifecycle of IT Services in the Cloud
&
This ontology models the steps involved in the phases of discovery, negotiation, composition, and consumption of Cloud services. The modelling of Cloud service features is very limited, and their link to an example of a storage service is no longer accessible.

\medskip
Actor/Consumer/Vendor, SLA, QoS, Functional/Non-Functional Property, Application Layer, Component.

\medskip

differences between above mwe and yours are indicated by % <---