Re: [RDF+OWL] conformance

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>>> I drafted a conformance section:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Conformance_Clauses
>>>
>>> This section contains clauses for both BLD and Core. Please have a look.
>> Looks good.
>>
>> My main reservation is the restriction to not have rdf:first, rdf:rest,
>> rdf:nil in the rule conclusions since that prevents conformant
>> processors supporting construction of RDF lists, even though they can
>> construct RIF lists.
> 
> Well, the statement says that conformant consumers are not required to
> be able to process such combinations.  However, it does not prevent
> conformant consumers from accepting combinations that do have these
> statements in rule conclusions.  Observe also that there are no
> restrictions on the use of these names in the definition of conformant
> producers.

True.

>> Can we say that this vocabulary is permissible in
>> conclusions so long as the entailed RDF graph meets the restrictions on
>> well-formedness of RDF lists?
> 
> Well, this would be a condition that is rather hard to check.  In fact,
> I believe it is not decidable.  I would rather not have such a statement
> in a conformance clause.

Good point.

>> o The ∈ doesn't display for me in Firefox (used in a couple places
>> when describing the profile).
> 
> This is odd. We use the symbol in a number of places throughout our
> documents and it is a standard HTML entity. I also have no problems
> seeing them with my Firefox.
> 
> If there is one near the start of the 5th paragraph. Does your browser
> not render it?

No, nor any other occurances in the document. This is a vanilla Firefox 
3.0.10 running under Windows Vista.

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 08:22:39 UTC