W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Interesting thread wrt QCRs, OWL 1.1, etc.

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:00:41 +0000
Message-Id: <64F65741-3AE3-47F7-95FD-79A47B7B5A2C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

<http://www.mail-archive.com/public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org/msg01296.html>

On the one hand, it points to the need for things like QCRs (and even  
simple things like DisjointUnion).

On the other hand, the use of "OWL 1.1" confused at least two people  
in the list, worrying one that an RSS like version war/confusion  
might ensue.

E.g., <http://www.mail-archive.com/public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org/ 
msg01300.html>

"""I had a look at the documentation of the OWL 1.1 proposal, and I  
have to say
that the "1.1" is a bit misleading, since it will not be a W3C  
standard."""

(Ivan Herman points out that s/will not be/is not yet/ is  
appropriate. Though I don't know if that makes it less misleading to  
him.)

At the end of OWLED06, I pointed out that the likely way to handle  
versioning is by adding/rationalizing the species of OWL. However  
painful, the species have be absorbed by a number of people and do  
provide a useful framework for categorizing what's going on in OWL.  
The tool support doesn't hurt either.

(To do that, we may need a compositional species naming scheme, or  
just someone good at names :))

The *name* "OWL 1.1" was *thought* to be nonthreatening and  
nonconfusing, and really, just a convenient handle, though clearly  
for some people it is neither. At OWLED 2.0, we were contrasting it  
with a notion of "OWL 2.0" wherein there'd pop in much greater  
changes (e.g., heavyweight non-monontonic features).

I'll add some clarifying text to the 1.1 page:
	<http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/>
and perhaps the overview.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 10:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT