- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:43:28 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Brian_McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>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]." There is an anchor at the beginning of that paragraph (para 7 in section 0.1, beginning "Particular uses of RDF, ..."): #DefSemanticExtension and in the latest version (2.6, just done today) I have added the anchor #RDFSemanticExtension one sentence before the point you suggest, ie at "Extensions or dialects..." >Conformance clauses need to be backed by implementation >experience in a request for PR. I suppose we have some, >in OWL. Yup. And DAML, for that matter. Pat >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:43:29 UTC