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

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:33:19 +0000
Message-Id: <BA42BDCA-465D-4EAA-9DFE-7D123957B491@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On 23 Jan 2009, at 13:11, Michael Schneider 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.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Meaning the "latest version at every time", i.e. Unicode 5 today,  
> Unicode 6
> next year, etc., right?

Yes.

> Perhaps add some clarification such as "(i.e. the
> documents should not refer to a particular version number)",  
> because the
> text might also be understood as "latest version numbers NOW", which
> wouldn't really be a big win, IMHO.

Agreed.

How about, """We recommend that RDF be defined by means of a "generic  
reference" to Unicode in the sense of:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode
and analogously for XML."""

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 16:29:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 January 2009 16:29:56 GMT