- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:03:25 -0500 (EST)
- To: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
- Cc: schneid@fzi.de, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
I believe that this summarizes the decisions appropriately. peter From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:53:20 +0000 > Am I right in understanding that we decided: > > 1) to refer to fixed versions of documents that we cite; > 2) to split references sections into normative and informative parts; > 3) to ensure that references are uniform throughout all of our > documents? > > Regarding the last point, we should figure out a suitable mechanism. We > could create a single shared bibliography, but this might be difficult > w.r.t. point 2 above (not sure if all documents will have the same > normative/informative split). We could create a "shared" wiki document > for each citation and include them in the usual way, but this might be a > bit heavyweight. > > Comments and/or other suggestions are welcome. > > Ian > > > > On 5 Feb 2009, at 12:16, Michael Schneider wrote: > > >> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] > > > >> You misunderstand me. The point is that RDF "the language" isn't > >> necessarily fixed. There might be new versions, just as their might > >> be new version of Unicode. The issue is whether your document should > >> normatively reference a *particular* version or normatively reference > >> the current "and any future one". > > > > Ah, sorry, really a misunderstanding on my side. > > > >>> But as I said, I have no problem with adding the additional > >>> information. > >>> Just let's have a common policy, in order to reduce creativity. :) > >> > >> Obviously, that's what I'm trying to do. > >> > >> But sometimes it may make sense to refer to a fixed version in one > >> document and not in another. For example, allowing any future version > >> of XML be a legal OWL/XML syntax is probably ok. Claiming that your > >> semantics is an extension of *any future* RDF semantics probably > isn't. > > > > It's definitely an extension of that particular RDF Semantics > specification. > > It's impossible to foresee the future, and there may be a lot of new > things > > and changes in an RDF 2 spec that may then be in conflict with current > OWL 2 > > Full. Same for RDF Concepts. > > > >> Cheers, > >> Bijan. > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > -- > > Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider > > Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) > > Tel : +49-721-9654-726 > > Fax : +49-721-9654-727 > > Email: schneid@fzi.de > > WWW : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 > > > > > ============================================================================ > > == > > > > FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe > > Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe > > Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 > > Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > > Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe > > Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael > Flor, > > Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, > Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Rudi > > Studer > > Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus > > > > > ============================================================================ > > == > > > >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 14:03:27 UTC