W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:15:21 +0000
Message-Id: <EC7B953E-F5C1-4D01-9AEC-9EE031B85338@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 11:40, Michael Schneider wrote:
[snip]
>> I don't know if they are both  normative,
>
> They are both normative.
[snip]

Ok.

>> but should they reference "latest version"? I suspect not.
>
> Both are W3C Recommendations, so I guess that "latest version"  
> would be
> redundant.

No. There can be later versions of RDF. There can even be different  
"Editions" of the same recommendation (see XML fifth edition).

> Of course, one can have an entry "latest version" for /each/ of
> the references.

I'm not sure. Unicode changes in *very* specific ways, i.e., it adds  
more characters. RDF could change in arbitrary ways. In this case,  
referencing a fixed version might be better.

> If the WG feels that this is a good idea, I will add them.
>
> More generally, maybe we should settle on a common format for all  
> references
> in all our documents.

Yes, I mentioned this before but would like it raised at least as an  
editorial issue: All the references need to be sanity checked. All  
reference sections should be split into "normative" and "informative"  
sections.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:11:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:11:53 GMT