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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:13:58 +0100
Message-ID: <472C3BD6.1060406@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 

I agree with that.

> 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.
> 

Just for clarification: would it be, in your view, impossible to find a
WG (and possibly community) consensus on these goals early enough in the
process? The choice of the version number and the short name URI is just
an administrative issue whose solution forces us to make this decision
which will certainly affect the work of this WG...

I am sure some members of the group would prefer to say that OWL-to-be
is indeed meant to be a superset of OWL-that-exists, along the lines of
the backward compatibility criteria that are still to be decided[1]
(though that means that the documents produced by the WG should stand by
themselves with a list of differences to OWL-that-exists). This is
certainly how I read the 'spirit' of the OWL submission. Jeremy, would
it be possible to collect the counterarguments to this, just to clarify
the issues?

Thanks

Ivan

P.S. Note that this choice should also affect the namespace URI used for
OWL1.1 constructs. Ideally, the same naming scheme should be used for
the namespace URI and the short name.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Backward_compatibility_audit


> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf



Received on Saturday, 3 November 2007 09:14:07 GMT

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