W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Choosing a "short name" for our working group pubs

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:20:35 +0000
Message-ID: <472B5C63.2050104@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Shall we use "owl11"?

Currently, I would vote against.


a) the charter is clear that there is a  question:
it is up to the Working Group to decide whether the final name of the 
extension will bear the name “OWL 1.1” or not,
since we have not considered this question, I would see it as premature 
to hard code the answer into our document URLs


b) the versioning policy of W3C seems to me to argue against the 
appropriateness of a 1.1 label:

However, one common expectation when using the major/minor version 
scheme is that, for a given major version number, the Recommendation 
with the highest minor version number supersedes all others sharing that 
major version number. By supersede, we mean that authors and 
implementers should stop using the old version and start using the new 
version; in effect the new version masks the old one. The status section 
of a minor version should state clearly that it supersedes the previous 
minor version.

I do not believe there will be community consensus that OWL 1.1 should 
mask OWL 1.0, hence OWL 1.1 seems an inappropriate name for a 
recommendation that evolves from the member submission.

Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 17:21:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC