- From: Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:41:49 +0100
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 26 Oct 2007, at 15:09, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >>> I think that it is "ready for prime time", i.e., that we can use >>> this >>> mechanism to transition the documents for real, and start editing. >> >> Agreed. Let's do it. > > Okay, done. I moved the issues over to the talk page. > > Can you tell me what that page should really be named in the wiki, and > what the other documents should be named in the wiki? I'm not sure what is wrong with the existing names, but if something shorter is required how about: > > The OWL 1.1 site has: > <dt><a href="overview.html">Overview</a></dt> Overview > <dt><a href="owl_specification.html">Structural Specification and > Functional-Style Syntax</a></dt> Syntax > <dt><a href="metamodel.html">MOF-Based Metamodel</a></dt> MOF-Based Metamodel > <dt><a href="semantics.html">Model-Theoretic Semantics</a></dt> Semantics > > <dt><a href="xml_syntax.html">XML Syntax</a></dt> XML Serialisation > <dt><a href="rdf_mapping.html">Mapping to RDF Graphs</a></dt> Mapping to RDF Graphs > <dt><a href="tractable.html">Tractable Fragments</a></dt> Tractable Fragments Ian > > which is where I got "Specification" as the short name, but I'd love > something which conveys more information. I guess the term "Abstract > Syntax" is being frowned upon now? Maybe "Syntactic Structures"? > > (it's not hard to change later, but if y'all know now, that'd be > cool.) > > -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 14:41:57 UTC