- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:15:21 +0000
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 4 Feb 2009, at 11:40, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] >> I don't know if they are both normative, > > They are both normative. [snip] Ok. >> but should they reference "latest version"? I suspect not. > > Both are W3C Recommendations, so I guess that "latest version" > would be > redundant. No. There can be later versions of RDF. There can even be different "Editions" of the same recommendation (see XML fifth edition). > Of course, one can have an entry "latest version" for /each/ of > the references. I'm not sure. Unicode changes in *very* specific ways, i.e., it adds more characters. RDF could change in arbitrary ways. In this case, referencing a fixed version might be better. > If the WG feels that this is a good idea, I will add them. > > More generally, maybe we should settle on a common format for all > references > in all our documents. Yes, I mentioned this before but would like it raised at least as an editorial issue: All the references need to be sanity checked. All reference sections should be split into "normative" and "informative" sections. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:11:53 UTC