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

Re: pointing OWL 1 specs at OWL 2 specs

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:49:37 +0200
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <4EE99C1C-69E4-4178-ADB5-4CB1F3213F4B@uva.nl>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Hi,

Not a really strong opinion, but the inserted note has my preference.  
As Ian says, it does the job.

Doing nothing isn't really an option as people will not find the OWL 2  
version on their own (cf. the old and new RDF spec). The last one is  
problematic since pages and documents referring to OWL 1 will suddenly  
point to OWL 2.

Best,
Rinke


On 20 okt 2009, at 22:22, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> Hi Sandro,
>
> Thanks for your efforts on this.
>
> The inserted-note approach may not be perfect, but it is simple and  
> does the job.
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>


---
Dr Rinke Hoekstra

AI Department         |   Leibniz Center for Law
Faculty of Sciences   |   Faculty of Law
Vrije Universiteit    |   Universiteit van Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1081a    |   Kloveniersburgwal 48
1081 HV Amsterdam     |   1012 CX  Amsterdam
+31-(0)20-5987752     |   +31-(0)20-5253499
hoekstra@few.vu.nl    |   hoekstra@uva.nl

Homepage: http://www.few.vu.nl/~hoekstra
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:50:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:50:09 GMT