- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:52:12 +0000
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I agree that examples and test cases are the way to go. Ian On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:42, Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > Here is how I thought on handling this: > > - We should make the normative text point only to XML Schema -- > that is, we > don't repeat any of the definitions. > > - We introduce a bunch of examples to clarify things we believe > might cause > confusion. In fact, last week I've already added a bunch of > examples to that > effect. All of these examples could (and should) be converted to > test cases. > > In this way, we are not contradicting XML Schema; however, we are > making sure > that the intricate details of XML Schema and its interplay with OWL > are clear. > > Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- >> request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of Bijan Parsia >> Sent: 17 March 2009 12:34 >> To: Sandro Hawke >> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group >> Subject: Re: ambiguity in XML Schema >> >> On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:31, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> [snip] >>> I don't disagree with any of that. >>> >>> I suggest we leave it at this: if someone sees a place where they >>> believe folks could reasonably mis-understand XML Schema (with >>> respect >>> to OWL), they should propose one or more test cases to clarify the >>> matter. *If* we end up approving some test cases like that, then >>> we'll >>> consider whether some clarifying text is needed somewhere (in our >>> specs >>> or in XML schema specs.) >> >> As we should for all our specs :) >> >>> Good enough? >> >> Indeed, but, as I say, not really XML Schema specific. >> >> Cheers, >> Bijan. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 14:54:41 UTC