Re: Updated Conformance and Test Cases

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 5 Nov 2008, at 18:03, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> A nit on the must accept/generate RDF/XML. Because of the syntactic
>>>> restrictions in RDF/XML that prevent serialization of all RDF, for
>>>> some OWL 2 Full document one MUST do something that isn't possible. I
>>>> suggest a footnote saying something about this. An alternative would
>>>> be to specify that NTRIPLES must be acceptable as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would just amend the text to "MUST, if possible".
>>>
>>
>> I be happy with that but would prefer to couple it with something
>> indicating that the other syntaxes SHOULD not be used in such a way as
>> to not have it be possible for the RDF/XML to serialize their
>> contents.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
> But how else to do it? I mean, I think if you want to use URIs as
> properties that are incompatible with RDF/XML not only *should* you use one
> of the other serializations (OWL/XML i would  hope) but you *have* to.


Hi Bijan,

I just wanted it to make sense that if our standard exchange format is our
standard exchange format that we remind people what that entails. I used the
wording should, instead of must, because there might perhaps be cases where
this might be ignored. But I think it makes sense that if we are
standardizing on RDF/XML we have the document read in a way that makes
sense.

-Alan


>
>
> You want a constraint on property names.
>
> Given that the RDF documents say nothing in this regard, I don't think we
> should either. I don't think this "SHOULD" does anything more effective than
> the fact of RDF/XML (and our constraint on producing it and consuming it)
> already does.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>