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

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

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:51:04 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001070E07@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:15 AM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
>Subject: Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references

>>> 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).

Yes, but then (a) the "fifth edition" is part of the title, and in any case
(b) the date of publication, which is mentioned in the reference, is
different (for the XML example: 2008-02-05 for the fifth edition, rather
than 2006-09-29 for the fourth one). And further, there is also a hyper link
to the cited version of the document.

But as I said, I have no problem with adding the additional information.
Just let's have a common policy, in order to reduce creativity. :)

Cheers,
Michael



Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:51:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:51:47 GMT