- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:21:40 +0000
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Hmmm have just been discussing 5 Good Practice E: Use formal languages and define which from prose and formal languages has priority. wiki topic: http://esw.w3.org/topic/FormalLanguageVsProse with a colleague .. (note this is not a formal comment, merely discussion). We've had quite a few discussions in SW where there are two formal/semi-formal descriptions ... RDF Semantics: Model Theoretic vs Inference Rules OWL Semantics DL Model Theory or RDF Compatible Model Theory apparantly in DAWG/SPARQL - declarative explanation of optionals or procedural explanation of optionals I have at least found it arguable that both should be normative, since any divergence between the two is a bug in the spec that needs fixing, and until you see the bug you can't decide which part will change. Another consideration is that often the reason for having two is that the more abstract version (e.g. a model theory, or a declarative expalanation) is the more natural place for the WG to make its decisions, whereas the more concrete version (inference rules or a procedure) is what implementors will use. Most people seem to have been more comfortable with making a decision for one or the other to have priority than saying that deviation between the two is a bug. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 14:22:02 UTC