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

Re: regrets and a few comments on versioning/imports

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:32:39 -0400
Message-Id: <C7EB5C97-B8A3-4F23-BF3D-D575A9C32972@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On May 28, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I'm at the RIF F2F, and we just had a WG resolution to go for beer,  
> so I
> may not be able to attend the OWL telecon.   :-)
> Comments on Versioning/Imports in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ 
> Syntax:
> I'm okay the design, but I have a few editoral comments I'd like
> addressed before the next publication.
> In 3.3:
>     I'd like an acknowledgement that the "current" version may not be
>     the most recently created version -- it's just the current  
> one.  The
>     most recently created one might be a "testing" version.
Good point.
> In 3.4:
>     I think we need more clarity in the last paragraph.  It looks  
> to me
>     like we're breaking backward compatibility.    So either I'm
>     misreading (and the text needs to be changed) or we have a bigger
>     problem.
What's the backward compatibility issue, specifically?
> I would also like some acknowledgement that some systems do
> "auto-imports", where they perform imports based on the URIs used  
> in the
> document (especially as names for classes and properties), even  
> when no
> imports directive is present.  We don't need to pass judgement on this
> practice, but if we don't mention it, it's rather confusing how this
> (perfectly legitimate) practice relates to OWL2 import.

Legitimate in what sense? I wouldn't expect an OWL processor to do this.
I'm with Peter on this one. Say nothing, because what can be said?

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 18:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC