- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:19:08 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:14 , Sandro Hawke wrote: [skip] >>>> >>> Technically, that may be true. But I have to pull, my apologies for that, a formal problem. We would end up having a normative part in one recommendation normatively refer to an informative section of another recommendation. That may raise eyebrows. >> Ah. I had not thought about that point, I confess. Hmm. There has to be a way around this. > > There is -- we're not talking about making it "non-normative", we're talking about making it optional, in the same sense that the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics (aka OWL Full) is optional. That spec is normative: if you're doing OWL Full, then this spec says what you must do. > > We'd just be separating the RDF semantics from the RDF model and syntax. It would now be okay, according to the spec, to use the RDF model and syntax without using the RDF semantics. > > OWL and RIF, because they chose to use the RDF semantics, would of course be bound by them. > > -- Sandro > Yes, that could work. Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 15:19:34 UTC