- From: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:54:54 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
hi antoine, On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:51:15AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hello Alistair, > >> From one random W3C spec found by Google [1]: > > normative > > required for conformance > > Note 1: One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. > > Note 2: Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance. > > > informative > > for information purposes and not required for conformance > > Note: Content required for conformance is referred to as "normative." > > > > You can argue that this is not 100% clear in our case, as if we require conformance with OWL-Full ontology, we in fact also require conformance with the OWL-DL one (as it is a subset of it). > But from a document writing (and reading!) perspective it may matter: the only formal conformance condition we define (in section 1.8) is the one wrt. the OWL-Full ontology, i'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. currently, section 1.8 of the skos reference does not state any formal notion of conformance. niether does it mention the owl full ontology. so are you proposing we add something to section 1.8? cheers alistair -- Alistair Miles Senior Computing Officer Image Bioinformatics Research Group Department of Zoology The Tinbergen Building University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3PS United Kingdom Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2009 20:55:32 UTC