- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:25:41 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Reading from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdf_entail I see stuff like "Semantic extensions MAY limit the formal interpretations of these vocabularies to conform to these intended meanings." That's a conformance clause; i.e. it suggests somebody can say "banana-ML is a semantic extension to RDF". When they do so, it's nice if they can link to a defining anchor for that term. I don't see one. Pat, I suggest you make one. Perhaps this one: "Semantic extensions of RDF are constrained in this recommendation using the keywords MUST , MUST NOT, SHOULD and MAY of [RFC 2119]." Conformance clauses need to be backed by implementation experience in a request for PR. I suppose we have some, in OWL. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 12:25:42 UTC