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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:16:07 -0400
Message-Id: <41424378-F1A1-4065-9657-286B57FA9E4C@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

OK. Please suggest an alternative. We'll need one.
-Alan


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
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 18:16:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT