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: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:02:35 +0100
Message-ID: <47303BBB.9030609@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Alan,

you (and Jeremy) probably know that but it may be good to summarize this
for those on the WG who do not know all these terms... I hope it is all
right if I do this.

To take an example, the 'OWL Overview' recommendation's so called
'dated' URI is:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/

the undated URI (which always refers to the latest dated URI) is:

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

the 'short name', in that jargon, is 'owl-features'. (Note that this
appears two times in those URI-s as a pattern!)

Ie, we probably will have to choose a short name of the sort AAA-BBBB
where BBBB refers to a specific document within the family we have and
AAA is, well,... that is where the real issue is that we have to decide.
Should it be 'owl', 'owl11', 'owlXXX' or something else.

Note that if we choose a short name that already exist (eg,
'owl-features'), this essentially mean that what we produce 'shadows'
the earlier versions because, as I said, the short, undated URI always
refers to the latest version of the document.

Ivan



Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> So is there any downside to just using "owl" as the short name?
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 

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 Tuesday, 6 November 2007 10:32:55 GMT

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