- From: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 08:48:23 +0200
- To: 'Francois Bry' <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
I strongly support the kind of approach suggested here. From a standards point of view the reference should be to something regarded as semi-official. In MathML we used a specific edition of a well known and heavily referenced text. I suspect that no matter how good, at this stage, WikiPedia would be still regarded as Informative rather than normative. E.g., "... This element represents the exponentiation function as described in Abramowitz and Stegun, section 4.2" (from appendix C) Stan -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francois Bry Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:08 AM To: public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: [RIF] Agenda 2 May RIF Telecon I the WG goes to inculding such defs in documents, I would striongly recommend to explicitel;y refer to well established logic text books instead of citing Wikipeadia, how good it might be, or proposing yet another text similar to those found in good logic text books, eg Kees Doets. From Logic to Logic Programming, The MIT Press, 1994) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262041421/sr=8-1/qid=1146724851/ref=pd_bbs _1/104-1241285-2467909?%5Fencoding=UTF8** Francois
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 06:48:40 UTC