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: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 18:17:55 -0400
Message-Id: <73719480-397F-4227-8FB3-27B5C3C27E5B@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

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

> 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.

Two thoughts about this.

1) The short name doesn't commit us to a decision about what the  
official name of the product is, nor the namespace. The worse that  
can happen is that people look sideways a bit at the url.

2) On the question of whether we release OWL 1.1, I'm not sure I see  
what you mean by masking. First, in the section quoted it says there  
is an expectation, but obviously not a certainty, as it instructs  
that the status section explicitly say what the policy is. Further I  
don't see this sort of thing happening uniformly -  just because  
there is http 1.1 doesn't mean people don't use http 1.0. Finally,  
our charter says we are aiming for backwards compatibility. I  
completely agree that we need to come to consensus about what we call  
the next release, but I'm unaware of options other than having our  
current work be a new rev of OWL. Could you set out what you see as  

Received on Saturday, 3 November 2007 22:18:09 UTC

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