- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:44:33 -0500
- To: "'Phil Archer'" <phil@philarcher.org>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "'public-powderwg'" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
It still may be unclear as to exactly what needs to conform and exactly how it should conform (as mentioned in Quality Assurance Specification Guidelines Requirement 1 [1]). Perhaps these aspects should be clarified? http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conformance-clause Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST -----Original Message----- From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:35 AM To: Dan Connolly Cc: public-powderwg Subject: Re: struggling to understand conformance in POWDER formal semantics Dan, Thanks for taking time to review our documents. I'll work through your comments, starting with this one. Dan Connolly wrote: > I'm puzzled by this... > > "Conformance with this document means that Description Resources may be > transformed from POWDER to POWDER-BASE to POWDER-S as set out below > without any change to their semantics. When querying or inferring from > the RDF/OWL graph, conformant implementations of this document will also > implement the semantic extension defined below." > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-formal/#conformancestatement > > What product classes are being defined here? > I see "conformant implementations" but I don't really see > a definition of the form > > A conforming POWDER implementation is ... > > as I'd expect. Yes this is tricky as what the formal doc defines is: 1. The semantic extension 2. The transformation through the 3 species of POWDER. Also, for various reasons (some historical, some practical), 'POWDER' is defined in 3 separate documents so we can't say "A conforming POWDER implementation is ..." in this document. We do say something similar in the definition of a POWDER Processor, however [1]. OK, but taking your comment on board, how about: "A conformant implementation of this Recommendation will transform POWDER to POWDER-BASE to POWDER-S as set out below without any change to the semantics at each stage. When querying or inferring from a POWDER-S document (an RDF/OWL graph), conformant implementations of this document will also implement the semantic extension defined in Section 4.3." [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20081114/#conformance > I'd also expect to see something about conformance of documents, > though perhaps that's in one of the other documents? In which > case a cross-reference seems in order. Agreed. So I'll add to the previous sentence: A separate conformance statement relating to POWDER and POWDER-S documents is given in Section 2.9 of the the Description Resources document [@ref]. OK with you? Phil. -- Phil Archer w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 16:45:18 UTC