- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:41:56 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] > 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. It doesn't entail this. > I used the wording should, instead of must, ?? MUST if possible seems better > 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. It already makes sense. It *doesn't* make sense to talk about serialization when you mean constraining the model. MUST, if possible seems fine. SHOULD not use our speced alternative syntaxes is weird. I mean: """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. """ Is not sensible. It doesn't even achieve the effect you desire, AFAICT. I won't point out (*again*) the loophole since I refuse to go further down this rathole. I think we have reasonable guidance at the moment and I oppose making conformance more confusing by adding weird, incoherent clauses (which are, in fact, stricter than what RDF itself imposes!) Also, as I pointed out, it's pretty clear that this SHOULD NOT has no bite, it's pointless to add. Also, in general, one uses SHOULD (the generic) when you don't have specific exemptions in mind. We have clear situations where one cannot use RDF/XML to serialize one's ontology. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 09:42:37 UTC