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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:03:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090209.090325.121688939.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Cc: schneid@fzi.de, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

I believe that this summarizes the decisions appropriately.

peter


From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:53:20 +0000

> 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 14:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 14:03:27 GMT