Re: ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references

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