- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:14:28 -0400
- To: mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
- cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> The reason why the field is called "normative syntax" is that this is
> a syntactic form that is normative *for the test*, i.e. one that tools
> can use to check if they pass the test (the test ontology also allows
> non-normative syntax forms that do not have an official status). The
> normative versions have been carefully checked before approving a test
> case in the working group, so there is some quality commitment that
> could not really be given for automatically generated
> translations. This is why these syntaxes are specifically marked, even
> for tests that do not involve syntax conversions. Maybe we should
> change "normative" to some other term in order to avoid confusion
> between "normative syntaxes for OWL" and "syntax of a normative
> ontology used in this test"?
"Original" seems like the right word, here. Or maybe "primary".
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 12:15:13 UTC