W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: publication progress

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:50:27 +0100
Message-Id: <A5D54AA6-D30B-4D65-A331-E5B12E6F3374@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>

On 7 Apr 2008, at 17:27, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:

> i like the idea of the technology buttons for being able to see a  
> more detailed view of the issues that will make sense for the owl 1  
> users.
> I believe though that everyone should know that owl 2 builds on owl  
> 1 so i believe something about this as an update to owl 1 should  
> stay in the intro.

This doesn't seem to scale. That is, I don't see why we wouldn't then  
also acknowledge that it builds on DAML+OIL. In the guide, these are  
all in an appendix anyway:

> thus i would propose doing as you suggest with the technology  
> buttons for the owl 1 perspective
> but leaving something like what was in the intro as acknowledgment  
> of owl intellectual history.  this could mention the expanded  
> section that is coming later

Looking at some other W3C specs (e.g., XSLT)  things like DSSSL (the  
prior version) are just listed as references:

And removed entirely in XSLT2:

Though in the abstract:
	XSLT 2.0 is a revised version of the XSLT 1.0 Recommendation [XSLT  
1.0] published on 16 November 1999.

And there's:

Though these are of the spec.

The WSDL 2.0 primer doesn't have any such stuff about WSDL 1.1  
upfront (though WSDL 1.1 was very widely used).

So, I'm unsure.

Given that the abstract already mentions that OWL 2 extends OWL 1 and  
we'll have a section on it, does it help readers to also get it in  
the intro?

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 16:48:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC