Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

On 4 May 2012, at 12:45, Ivan Herman wrote:
> On May 4, 2012, at 13:39 , Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
>> On 4 May 2012, at 12:34, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> New features are explicitly allowed. So we don't even have to get into what "feature" means. It's explicitly allowed.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, you are right. But it also says:
>>> 
>>> "For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C must follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation."
>> 
>> As I acknowledged below:
>> 
>> "Clearly not, afaict. We could do that, of course. We would have to have a nominal LC, CR, and PR, though these are frankly, to my mind, ridiculous."
> 
> Sorry, missed that.

No worries!
[snip]
>> BTW, Can we add comments to the Functional Syntax as requested? I think that would be useful as well :)
> 
> Sorry Bijan, I am not sure I understand what you ask.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2012Feb/0000.html

So we have an inconsistency in the spec. One section suggests that there are comments (#comment) in the FS, but the grammar does not contain such a production and implementation therefore don't support it. However, it's a tiny change.

Is this a new feature? Or would this just be a conformance shift?

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 11:49:28 UTC