- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:40:18 -0400
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Rinke Hoekstra'" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Boris, The standard way to define these in W3C TRs is to cite the rfc. Here are examples from some W3C specs [1][2]. Saying anything more or less won't help, and might hurt. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20070307/#s_conformance [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#conformance -Alan On May 29, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Boris Motik wrote: > I took the liberty to update the document along these lines: once we > see the text, we might actually have a better idea of how good > the resolution works. Also, I have added a new section 1.1 which > describe the meaning of "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT". Here is the > diff: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=8197&oldid=8168 > > Section 1.1, I hope, also addresses Peter's comment that we need to > specify which part of the document is normative and which is > not. (The solution is, roughly speaking, to make the whole document > normative, apart from the intuitive description of the > semantics.) > > Please let me know should you have some comments/problems regarding > my formulation in Section 1.1 and/or the usage of "SHOULD" and > "should".
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:40:56 UTC