W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2011

RE: [RIF Errata] Process and Examples

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:25:59 -0500
To: 'Sandro Hawke' <sandro@w3.org>
CC: "'public-rif-wg@w3.org'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7548FA9B5763F408F5EB57EE2838362E3834708@NRCCENMB1.nrc.ca>
Fine with me(*). What about other Rec editors?

Harold

--------------------------

(*) When I researched this, I was glad to see Recs linking directly to
a wiki page, such as the errata<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Errata>
link from <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/>. In this
special case, however, one could argue that it's not safe to link to a
(still widely editable?) wiki table for possibly normative corrections,
and that the publication of an Errata release (with all rows 'Accepted')
should take the form of a newly frozen/HTMLized table at a separate URL
(in TR space?) whose contents can only be changed by W3C staff.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] 
Sent: January 26, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Boley, Harold
Cc: 'public-rif-wg@w3.org'
Subject: Re: [RIF Errata] Process and Examples

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 13:59 -0500, Boley, Harold wrote:
> I suggest we should start RIF errata management, keeping track
> of hints about issues in the Recs, e.g. as accumulating in the various
> RIF mailing lists [1-3], in post-Rec wiki histories, and as indicated
> below.
> 
> For principles see: W3C Process Document (section 7.6)
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
> 
> For examples see: OWL and RDF Errata
> (both having one errata document for all their Recs)
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Errata
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata

Agreed.   Our Errata page is a wiki page, so any of us can edit it, but
we do need to coordinate it and make sure there's agreement on the
items.  It might be simplest to have the appropriate individuals
(usually the editor) draft proposals on the Errata page and just clearly
mark each one as "PROPOSED BY _____, NOT YET REVIEWED BY GROUP." and
then bring it up on this list.    Does that sound like it'll work?

    -- Sandro


> Harold
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Nov/0000.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2011Jan/
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2010Aug/0000.html
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Semantic_Structures
> 
> 
> 
> *        I(o[a1->v1 ... ak->vk]) = Iframe(I(o))({<I(a1),I(v1)>, ...,
> <I(an),I(vn)>})
> 
> Here {...} denotes a bag of attribute/value pairs. Jumping ahead, we
> note that duplicate elements in such a bag do not affect the truth
> value of a frame formula.
> 
>  
> 
> Thus, for instance, [a->b a->b] and o[a->b] always have the same truth
> value.
> ---->
> Thus, for instance, o[a->b a->b] and o[a->b] always have the same
> truth value.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Note that the definitions of INF and I(x=y) imply that the terms with
> named arguments that differ only in the order of their arguments are
> mapped by I to the same element in the domain.
> 
>  
> 
> This implies that the equalities like t(a->1 b->2 c->3) = t(c->3 a->2
> b->2) are tautologies in RIF-BLD.
> ---->
> This implies that the equalities like t(a->1 b->2 c->3) = t(c->3 a->1
> b->2) are tautologies in RIF-BLD.
> 
>  
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 15:26:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 January 2011 15:26:54 GMT