- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 23:53:03 +0000
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 6 Mar 2009, at 23:27, Michael Schneider wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org >> ] >> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks >> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:54 PM >> To: W3C OWL Working Group >> Subject: normative and non-normative references >> >> Peter has updated Manchester Syntax to distinguish normative and non- >> normative references [1]. >> >> Can other editors please do the same. > > Hi! > > I wonder if any of the references in the RDF-Based Semantics > > <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#References> > > is non-normative. What are the criteria for normative vs. non- > normative > references? If a normative criterion of your spec depends on a reference, then the reference is normative. > I would like to avoid having any non-normative refs in the RDF-Based > Semantics, if possible, Why? I mean, I don't think there's a requirement to have any, but I don't know why it's so worth avoiding. > and so I would prefer to not make this distinction > in the document. I found some mislabeled refs: [OWL 2 Structural Spec] But otherwise, they seem normative to me. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 23:53:40 UTC