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

On May 4, 2012, at 13:48 , Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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?

I think the latter. 

I presume this is what you are referring to:

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

which is listed on the official errata list:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Errata

B.t.w., those errata, whenever they are editorial:-) is to be handled as well.

Cheers

I.


> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.


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

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 12:01:04 UTC