Re: Next few weeks in RIF

> Done but it makes for a really big document (about 5x previous version). 
> I wonder if it would be better to put them at a known web location and 
> reference that from the document.
> 
> Sandro, what's the right process here?

Probably for me just to put it at some random W3C URL, like
    http://www.w3.org/2010/03/owlrl.rif
or
    http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/owlrl.rif

and think provide that URL in the document.

We should do something like this with all the schemas, too, I think.

We can set things up for someone else to have write access, but if it's
just posting and updating once in a rare while, I can do that.

   -- Sandro

> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> On 05/03/2010 14:35, Chris Welty wrote:
> >
> > Great, thanks Dave. Can you add the XML for the rules to an appendix?
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > Dave Reynolds wrote:
> >> On 01/03/2010 19:51, Chris Welty wrote:
> >>>
> >>> RIFWG,
> >>>
> >>> We'd like to make a push for the next few weeks to get ready for
> >>> transition. We have some decisions to make, some work to do on the
> >>> documents, etc.
> >>> So, we will resume weekly telecons for about a month, starting tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>> What is the status of the "other" documents, should we change or update
> >>> them? Are they in their final form?
> >>>
> >>> UCR: Leora?
> >>> XML-data: Christian?
> >>> OWL2/RL: Dave?
> >>
> >> As far as I know that is up to date. There have been several small
> >> changes since the first working draft. Rule errors spotted by Axel,
> >> some missing rules (due to changes in OWL 2 RL I had missed) and
> >> updated to use the List builtins. I have just updated the translation
> >> appendix (7) following Axel's recent comment that his fix hadn't been
> >> replicated there.
> >>
> >> However, there is one remaining Editor note (duplicated in two places):
> >>
> >> "These rules are believed to be correct. However, since the original
> >> version was developed various manual edits have been made to conform
> >> to changes in RIF and OWL 2 RL. Mechanical verification will be
> >> required before final publication."
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what to do about this. I'm no longer in a position to be
> >> running tests and verification on the updated rules. We could publish
> >> without this note and fix any further errors that implementers spot
> >> via Errata.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >
> 
>

Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 17:30:25 UTC