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

Re: Proposed comment for RDF (Re: ACTION-267 DONE)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:57:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4979BECF.8050607@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
It works for me (after all, it is the job of a future RDF group to look
at all the details).

I think that explicitly copying this to Jeremy, Martin Durst and to
Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> might make sense, they might add some
additional info that could be recorded in the thread.



Bijan Parsia wrote:
> How's this to start:
> We believe that the hard coded references to XML 1.0 version 2 in:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
> and
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
> and to Unicode 3.0 in
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
> and
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
> are unduly restrictive. We believe that they should normatively refer to
> the latest versions of both standards.
> Implementations that do not wish to update to the latest versions of
> those standard could indicate their conformance profile by saying
> "Supports RDF with Unicode 3.0 and XML 1.0 version 2". Since,
> technically speaking, such implementations must(?) reject documents or
> models which, e.g., use characters only in Unicode 5.0 this conformance
> message seems reasonable. It also frees implementations to be conforming
> while accepting such extended documents.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 12:58:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:08 UTC