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 12:02:39 +0000
Message-Id: <DB39846C-31EC-4DDD-B632-BC4584A85122@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On 5 Feb 2009, at 10:51, Michael Schneider wrote:

>> -----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.

You misunderstand me. The point is that RDF "the language" isn't  
necessarily fixed. There might be new versions, just as their might  
be new version of Unicode. The issue is whether your document should  
normatively reference a *particular* version or normatively reference  
the current "and any future one".

> 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. :)

Obviously, that's what I'm trying to do.

But sometimes it may make sense to refer to a fixed version in one  
document and not in another. For example, allowing any future version  
of XML be a legal OWL/XML syntax is probably ok. Claiming that your  
semantics is an extension of *any future* RDF semantics probably isn't.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 11:59:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 11:59:11 GMT