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: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 01:31:27 -0500
Message-Id: <A481029F-CE9B-4355-ABCE-2DB367604C9A@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

So is there any downside to just using "owl" as the short name?


On Nov 5, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> HTTP isn't a W3C spec, so the versioning policy may differ.
> Also it's nto clear which of the W3C specs have version numbers  
> which respect the quoted version policy.
> IMO A version masks an earlier version if there is no plausible  
> reason not to upgrade.
> In the minimal version of what this WG is doing, we are adding some  
> new items to the OWL vocabulary, to support QCRs and sub property  
> chains; and providing some new mechanisms in support of profiles/ 
> fragments/subsets or something.
> In this minimal version, it is certainly at least arguable that  
> there is no reason not to upgrade and OWL 1.0 to OWL 1.1 would be  
> the correct numbering on this policy.
> The reason non-vocab-extensions issues such as punning, or the  
> mapping rules, or whatever are, at least for HP, more contentious -  
> is that the balance between DL and Full is fragile, and changes  
> other than simple vocab extensions threaten that balance, and it  
> may be plausible that because of that there would be good reasons  
> to stay with OWL 1.0 and not upgrade. In particular, such reasons  
> may persuade HP's Jena team not to upgrade.
>> Finally, our charter says we are aiming for backwards compatibility.
> Yes - if we achieve this then maybe the number 1.1 will be  
> appropriate.
> But that means taking backward compatibility with OWL 1.0 as more  
> important than honouring the intent of the member submission  
> document. While this is my strong preference, I get the feeling  
> that many WG participants have a greater allegiance to the member  
> submission docs, than to the current recommendation.
> Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 06:31:39 UTC

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