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

Re: Fragments discussion

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:31:25 -0500
Message-ID: <47A15D2D.60509@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fragments discussion
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:47:38 -0500
>> We have a candidate here who is speaking during part of the telecon time 
>> later today so i will miss some of the meeting.
>> Thus, just in case the fragments discussion is not when i am on, i 
>> wanted to post the things i care most about with respect to fragments.
>> 1 - i would like to see backwards compatibility with OWL-Lite.
> I'm not sure what this means.
i thought this might come up in the telecon today.
i just attempted to pick up the wording in the question list.
my main issue with owl lite is that i do not think we should just drop 
it and thus abandon people who are using it.
 (I am fine with not actively doing things to promote future usage but i 
do not think it is good to just drop it. )
 I think that also precludes the thought of using the same name - owl 
lite - but having it mean something different for owl 1.1 lite vs owl 
1.0 lite.
I believe in whatever fragment or conformance level(s) we promote we 
will also want to have a short description about at least one class of 
expected users for the new fragment/conformance level.  this may allow 
current users of owl (1.0) lite see if they are in that class and if so, 
then they may want to consider moving to the new fragment / conformance 


> [...]
>> deborah
> peter
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 05:31:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC