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

RE: pointing OWL 1 specs at OWL 2 specs

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:49:08 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0017EC6CC@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I do not have a particularly good feeling with doing this, and I also see no
urgent need for this. There are other W3C standards around for which
different exist. For example HTML: when I look up HTML 3.2, I don't see such
a note pointing to the current version. And this does not seem to be a
problem in practice. On the other hand, I expect that there will still be
OWL1-based applications around for a while, and if I were selling such a
product, I wouldn't love to see that the specification to which my product
is claimed to be "fully compliant" is marked by a fat yellow note telling
everyone that this spec has been "superceded".

So I would rather leave things as they are. Just an opinion.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:23 PM
>To: Sandro Hawke
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: pointing OWL 1 specs at OWL 2 specs
>Hi Sandro,
>Thanks for your efforts on this.
>The inserted-note approach may not be perfect, but it is simple and
>does the job.
>On 20 Oct 2009, at 21:16, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> When people visit the OWL 1 recommendations like
>>    Overview
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
>>    Semantics and Abstract Syntax
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/
>>    etc
>> ... perhaps we'd like them be told, somehow, that OWL 2 exists.  The
>> best plan I've heard is to insert a note in those 2004 Recommendations
>> telling people about the 2009 ones.  It would look something like this
>> mockup I made:
>>    http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl-features-revised.html
>> Other options include:
>>    - do nothing; people can find OWL 2 on their own
>>    - make the "latest version" URLs (which I used above) point instead
>>      to something else.  owl-features could point to owl2-overview,
>> and
>>      owl2-overview could have TWO "Previous Version" URLS, one for the
>>      OWL 1 Recommendation, one for the OWL 2 Proposed Recommendation.
>>      The big problem with this is that for some documents, it's not
>>      clear what they would be updated to point to, since some OWL 1
>>      documents (like owl-semantics) are not replaced by exactly one
>>      document in OWL 2, or are not replaced at all (webont-req).
>> Also,
>>      this URL cleverness can get pretty confusing.
>> The people I've talked to, after some thought, seem to favor the
>> inserted-note approach.  It's unusual for W3C, but it has been done
>> before, and I think we can probably do it this time.
>> If anyone in the WG has strong opinions on this, please speak up now.
>>   -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:14 UTC