W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [RDF-CONCEPTS] Skolemization

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:32:59 -0400
Message-ID: <51BE4B2B.2030105@dbooth.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 06/16/2013 01:01 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> I think one of Pat's points, with which I agree, is that definitions
> don't have RFC2112 keywords.

that makes no sense to me.

The 2119 terms are not only for defining behavior, they are about *any* 
kind of specification requirements:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Furthermore the entire RDF spec is a *definition* of the RDF language! 
It happens to have an abstract syntax, but that is irrelevant.

> Definitional specs e.g. SPARQL Query,
> don't even reference RFC2119.

I have no idea why SPARQL does not use 2119 conformance terms.  that 
sounds to me like a mistake, since the 2119 terms are a useful standard, 
and that spec also defines a language: a query language.  there is no 
absolute need to use the 2119 terms in a specification.  specifications 
can always invent their own conformance language, or rely on the English 
prose skills of the editors to make the conformance requirements clear 
enough, just as was done in the days before the 2119 terms were 
standardized.  but it is silly to do that.  the 2119 terms are helpful 
because they add clarity.

David
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 23:52:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC