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

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

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:04:34 -0400
Message-Id: <40AA9609-1BD1-4F09-B158-52FB8731657D@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

+1, I believe that if we decide to stick with1.1, and using what  
Jeremy pointed to below, then it becomes incumbent on us to either  
update all the previous documents, or create a document set that we  
can assure, with the old documents, is consistent and comprehensive  
-- someone reading these docs has to get all of OWL if we go with OWL  
1.1 -- I think something that creates the expectation that this is an  
extension to 1.0, rather than a bug fix/replacement (because as far   
as I can tell there has been no suggestion to remove anything already  
in OWL) seems like it would be both an easier sell to the AC and an  
easier job for us to bring to completion sooner.

On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Alan:
> [[
> Shall we use "owl11"?
> ]]
> Currently, I would vote against.
> Rationale:
> 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
> See
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/51
> b) the versioning policy of W3C seems to me to argue against the  
> appropriateness of a 1.1 label:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
> [[
> 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.
> Jeremy

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 18:07:26 UTC

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