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

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

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:53:20 +0000
Message-Id: <82D2E4F3-3AC5-42CF-88C9-192D3907E120@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>

Am I right in understanding that we decided:

1) to refer to fixed versions of documents that we cite;
2) to split references sections into normative and informative parts;
3) to ensure that references are uniform throughout all of our  
documents?

Regarding the last point, we should figure out a suitable mechanism.  
We could create a single shared bibliography, but this might be  
difficult w.r.t. point 2 above (not sure if all documents will have  
the same normative/informative split). We could create a "shared"  
wiki document for each citation and include them in the usual way,  
but this might be a bit heavyweight.

Comments and/or other suggestions are welcome.

Ian



On 5 Feb 2009, at 12:16, Michael Schneider wrote:

>> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>
>> 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".
>
> Ah, sorry, really a misunderstanding on my side.
>
>>> 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.
>
> It's definitely an extension of that particular RDF Semantics  
> specification.
> It's impossible to foresee the future, and there may be a lot of  
> new things
> and changes in an RDF 2 spec that may then be in conflict with  
> current OWL 2
> Full. Same for RDF Concepts.
>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: schneid@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>
> ====================================================================== 
> ======
> ==
>
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael  
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. rer. nat.  
> Rudi
> Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
>
> ====================================================================== 
> ======
> ==
>
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 12:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 12:53:58 GMT