- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hmm. Probably a good idea. I've made this change. peter From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 63 JO1 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:53:46 -0400 > Alan wrote: >> In: >> The reason for a normative and recommendation track status for the OWL 2 >> XML syntax is to say that OWL 2 tools that use an XML syntax for OWL 2 >> *should* use the XML syntax provided in the OWL 2 recommendation. >> >> s/that use an XML syntax/that use an XML syntax for exchange of/ >> Presumably this should be fixed in the underlying document unless >> obvious from the immediate context >> > > rdf/xml is an XML syntax. To avoid needlessly courting controversy, we > should say something like: > "... tools that use an XML schema specified syntax for OWL 2 > *should* use the XML schema provided in the OWL 2 recommendation." > > I used the original text to illustrate the change, but the point is > independent of > the presence or absence of "for exchange of". > > -Evan > >
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 20:33:24 UTC