- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:13:10 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
I took an ACTION to review the LC candidate in Test for the text parts. This message is my review: First, I'd never really carefully read the test document before -- the editors have done a GREAT job. I believe it is ready for release modulo some fixing of some typographic errors (which I will send Jeremy separately) and the comments Sandro already raised. I do have two questions (these are not meant to be suggestions, but simply are checking that tagging matches editors intent) 1 - section 5 - Testing an OWL implementation is labeled Informative. I believe it would be consistent with WG decisions to be either informative or normative (at the editor's discretion) 2 - section 7.3 (which falls within the normative status of section 7) states: The following additional namespace prefix is used in this section: oiled http://oiled.man.example.uk/test# is it appropriate/permissible for us to have normative tests that point to a namespace out of W3C control? Copying the above file into our space, or (if it's the case) stating that tools don't have to dereference this ns would be solutions, or changing 7.3 to informative would all work. If the WG is comfortable, and process allows, the ns ref out of W3C space, I am fine with it. I also believe we should add a text concerning rdfs:class vs. owl:class, I will send that in a separate message as it will likely require a separate thread. -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:13:22 UTC