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 22:52:59 +0200
Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EDA3A5D8-6CF3-447A-9FEA-FD3199293108@uva.nl>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Hi Michael,

Well, we could always tinker a bit with the text...

Rinke


On 20 okt 2009, at 22:49, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi!
>
> 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 everyone that this spec has been "superceded".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.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>> -----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.
>>
>> 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 20:53:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:53:30 GMT