Re: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:25:27 +0100

> 2009/3/7 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
>> From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document
>> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:22:28 +0100
>>
>>> 2009/3/5 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
>>>> If NF&R has grammar productions (and I'm not happy that it has), then
>>>> there needs to be visible disclaimers that NF&R is non-normative.
>>>
>>> Is there needs to be visible disclaimers that QRG is non-normative ?
>>
>> There should be.
>>
>>> Is there needs to be visible disclaimers that Profiles is non-normative ?
>>
>> Profiles is normative for the profiles, but the grammar productions are
>> non-normative, I think, so again, there should be.
>>
>>> Christine
>>
>> peter
> 
> Thank you for the answer. All this is a little confusing and I'm a
> little lost with the various acceptations and use of these words in
> Disclaimers and in References. What is the intension behind those
> distinctions in disclaimer or in references ?
> 
> -- 
> Christine

For our documents, precisely so that a reader (and, more importantly, an
implementer) knows what information *defines* the various aspects of OWL
2.  For references, precisely so that a reader (and, more importantly,
an implementer) knows what other documents *have* to be read (perhaps
only in part) to complete the definition of OWL 2, and which other
referenced documents do not have to be read.

This is important even inside documents.  Syntax has the following wording:

  This document defines the structural specification of OWL 2, the
  functional syntax for OWL 2, and the behavior of datatype maps. Only
  the parts of the document related to these three purposes are
  normative. The examples in this document are informative and any part
  of the document that is specifically identified as informative is not
  normative. Finally, the informal descriptions of the semantics of OWL
  2 constructs in this document are informative; the semantics is
  precisely specified in a separate document [OWL 2 Direct Semantics].

This means that, for example, the examples only illustrate the
definition of the syntax.  If an example is wrong, or misleading, or
incomplete, then that does not affect OWL 2.  (Which is not to say that
the example should not be fixed, of course.)


The reason that I am being so picky about the distinction is that there
have been quite a few cases where non-normative documents about OWL 1
have been used to make points about OWL 1.  This has happened even in
this working group.  My belief is that one cause of this problem is that
the non-normative OWL 1 document do not explicitly state that they are
non-normative. 

I would prefer disclaimers in non-normative documents to read something
like:

  This document has no normative content.  It is completely informative.
  Nothing in this document affects the definition of OWL 2.  The only
  normative content for OWL 2 is found in OWL 2 documents that
  explicitly so state.

Normative documents would then say something like

  This [section of this] document defines [some part of OWL 2].  Only
  the parts of this [section of this] document related to this purpose
  are normative.  All other content of this [section of this] document
  is non-normative.

This *is* rather stilted, but I prefer stilted over mis-interpretable.


peter

Received on Saturday, 7 March 2009 11:22:57 UTC