Re: Naming - old and new SPARQL

Indeed, OWL started with OWL1.1. But I expect the amount of changes 
v.a.v. the old document to be smaller with SPARQL than with OWL. And, in 
spite of that, I am not fully sure that the decision for OWL 2 was a 
wise one:-(. I am definitely in favour of SPARQL 1.1 (plus, as Kjetil 
mentioed. a separate SPARQUL).

Ivan

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2009, at 21:35, Steve Harris wrote:
> 
>> On 25 Mar 2009, at 15:28, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> possibilities?
>>
>>> SPARQL 1.0 -> SPARQL 1.1
>>
>> That would be my favourite.
>>
>> Putting a year in there is just asking for publication dates like the 
>> 47th of December :)
>>
>> I agree with Andy about the negative connotations of SPARQL 2.
> 
> In the OWL WG, we started with OWL 1.1 (the submission) for pretty much 
> these reasons.
> 
> Then we ended up with OWL 2.
> 
> I don't think, in general, the "major revision" stuff carries much 
> weight (though I certainly used to think so :)), esp. with specs. We all 
> know software that has jumped all sorts of crazy versions :)
> 
> SPARQL 2 is nice because it's simple, has a simple policy (every 
> substantive addition to the main spec bumps the number), and feels good.
> 
> As for significant change, i would think that adding update alone would 
> be a 2 for me. YMMV.
> 
> (I'm not pressing for this...I'm fine with 1.1. But that's because I 
> don't care about names too much. I think the *argument* about major 
> revision numbers is very weak.)
> 
> Pick the most marketing sensible number and move on. SPARQL PI ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf