Re: Datatype (Map) Conformance Strangeness

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Datatype (Map) Conformance Strangeness 
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:29:53 -0400

>> I argued for not talking about "datatype maps" in the Conformance =
>> document at all. I suggest to just talk about "(sets of)
>> datatypes". My proposed revision of the section in my previous mail
>> reflects this.

> +1.  It's always slightly bugging me see "datatype maps" exposed to
> users of OWL, without any idea why they're supposed to understand them.
> 
>     -- Sandro

Conformance is a technical document, and thus needs to be careful to
cover even the unusual situations (like two different implementations
using the same datatype name with different meaning).  I thus do not
only favour Conformance using technical terms including terms from the
OWL 2 semantics (e.g., entailment), but I also do not see how the use of
such terms can be avoided.

That said, I don't see any reason not to change the sub-sub-section
heading name from "Datatype Map Conformance" to "Datatype Conformance".

peter

Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 14:02:31 UTC