- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:53:21 +0000
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: schneid@fzi.de, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
OK, thanks. We still need to figure out how to handle the bibliography. I shoved the references from Syntax in [1] as some kind of a starting point. Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Bibliography On 9 Feb 2009, at 14:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 15:54:00 UTC