referencing ssafss (was Re: Changing Shortnames (proposal))

> > 2. owl2-syntax                  Structural Specification and
> >                                 Functional-Style Syntax
> >
> >           Seems quite misleading to me.  I propose "owl2-structures",
> >           but I could live with owl2-ssfs or owl2-ssafss.
> 
> I am also not perfectly happy with "owl2-syntax", but can well live with 
> it, since
> 
>   (a) the document /is/ all about the specific syntax of OWL 2;
> 
>   (b) given the RDF Mapping document it is pretty clear
>       that the document isn't about RDF syntax;
> 
>   (c) I do not see really good alternatives.
> 
> I would consider it worse to use "owl2-specification", as we currently 
> do in our references:
> 
>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/References/ref-owl-2-specification>
> 
> For me, the specification of OWL 2 is the whole suite of the documents, 
> or at least the technical/normative part.

Yeah, I'm unhappy every time I read "OWL 2 SPECIFICATION" as a
reference.   I'm sure it makes sense to someone, but not me.

      -- Sandro