- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:05:05 +0100
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 27/09/12 14:54, Phil Archer wrote: > Following my action item to "Tidy up the conformance language, > preferably with bullet points", I suggest the following be included as > the conformance statement for our vocabularies. > > ===Begins=== > > Conformance to this vocabulary means: > - *using* its classes, properties and relationships; - *using* them in a way consistent with semantics of those classes and properties as declared in this specification [*] > - *using* as many of the terms as possible, but not > necessarily using every term; > - *not using* terms from other vocabularies instead of ones defined > in this vocabulary that could reasonably be used. > > Applications MAY: > > - specify a minimum set of terms that publishers must use if their > data is to be processed by the application; > - specify controlled vocabularies as acceptable values for > properties. > > This specification treats such restrictions as application-specific. > > ===Ends=== [*] Leaves open the question of whether we mean only formal semantics (from RDFS and OWL) or the informal semantics of the description of intention in the rdfs:comments. Dave
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:05:38 UTC