W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: review of Document Overview

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:38:20 -0400
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <31057.1238675900@ubehebe>

> > Remove EdNote on GRDDL.
> 
> I did that, because AFAIK we did decide exactly what to do about  
> GRDDL (see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/97). It was  
> subsequently determined that we can have multiple transforms, and  
> also that Sandro will develop a suitable XSLT (with some technical  
> help from Bijan). Others may have a different view?

While that's all true, we did agree (although not "resolve") in a
telecon to add that note AFTER we had closed the issue and settled on
our current course of action.  I think it was Bijan who was arguing for
this ednote, though, so if he doesn't have a problem with removing it,
then... okay.

> > 2.4/ Profiles:
> >
> > Remove Figure 2, as it serves no useful purpose.

I'm tempted to bet folks a drink that we'll get complaints about
removing it, but whatever....

> > 3/ Differences
> >
> > Could remove the subsection headers, as the subsections are all very
> > short.
> >
> >
> > Change "albeit under a possibly different name." to
> >        "albeit possibly under different names."
> >
> > Remove "; it also has a formal equivalence to UML [UML]."
> >        This is just *wrong*.
> >
> > 3.2:
> >       Just put this stuff elsewhere (perhaps in Primer).
> 
> I significantly shortened the whole of Section 3 and pointed to NF&R  
> for detailed explanation/documentation.
> 
> I also renamed it "Relationship to OWL 1" as this seems more  
> appropriate and avoids the negative connotations of "differences".

Very nice, except that we need a link explaining the "almost"s in
paragraph two to a place with text like Peter and I were crafting
yesterday.  If I were an OWL 2 user, I would insist the text actually be
normative, too.  (I guess there's no problem with a little normative
text in NF&R.)

Am I the only one who thinks OWL 1 users will want to know, in no
uncertain terms, whether OWL 2 breaks their stuff, BEFORE they accept
OWL 2?  Figuring that out by sifting through our entire spec seems a bit
much to ask.

    -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:38:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:38:29 GMT