W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: title format (was Re: comments on Overview and Guide)

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:53:40 -0800
Message-ID: <3E797384.EC04C816@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

unfortunately i dont think it makes sense for any individual editor to make the decision
since the main point of the suggestion is to have a uniform naming scheme.
my only current editorial decision  is to use the last group decision we had to have
uniformity but i will support any consistent reasonable suggestion.
the past format i viewed as reasonable and peter's suggestion i also view as reasonable.

deborah

Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 20:04, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:
> >
> > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> >
> > >         Comments on Overview and Guide
> > >
> > > (I'm waiting for the new version of Reference before providing comments.)
> > >
> > > - title - I changed to
> > >                 OWL Web Ontology Language
> > >                 Semantics and Abstract Syntax
> > >           on the suggestion of Jim Hendler.  This makes it clear that OWL
> > >           is not a misspelling of an acronym.
>
> Hmm... it's not any more clear than previous titles to me.
>
> > >  I suggest that we again
> > >           revisit the idea of a common way of naming the documents.
>
> I'd rather not. I consider this an editorial matter. You're the editor.
> Please decide.
>
> You're welcome to solicit advice from WG members,
> but I'd rather not spend telcon time on this.
>
> As your team contact, I'll remind you that
> the W3C manual of style has this advice to offer...
>
> [[[
>
> 7.1.1 Document Title
> The name of your document in the document head and on the technical
> reports index [TR] will read as follows. Optional elements are in square
> brackets.
>
> Title [(ACRONYM)] ["Level" n] ["Specification"][: Subtitle] ["Module"]
> [(nth "Edition")] ["Version" Version_Number]
>
> Try not to invent a new naming convention. Capitalize title words
> following U.S. usage.
> ]]]
>   -- http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#title
>
> The manual of style isn't binding, but it's edited by Susan Lesch
> who reads *every* W3C spec at last call and who keeps an ear to the
> ground regarding what level of consistency is valuable to
> the W3C audience and who, via spec-prod@w3.org, discusses
> conventions such as these with editors of a wide variety
> of other specs. I'd follow that advice if I were you.
>
> > is this the new consensus on titles?
>
> No, I don't think so.
> I'm not aware of any WG decision on titles in quite some time.
>
> > i do not have a strong opinion other than the documents should be consistent.
> > the overview is currently following the last agreement that i thought we had on
> > naming conventions.
> > the current title is:
> > Web Ontology Language (OWL): Overview
> >
> > if this is the new consensus, then I am happy to name the document
> > OWL Web Ontology Language Overview
> >
> > and a followup question is are we having any version information on the top of the
> > documents?
>
> I'm not aware of any instructions to the editors regarding
> version information.
>
> I have a mild preference for not bothering with version
> numbers in the title, since it's optional per
> the manual of style and we don't have any particular
> technical information in our specs about the interaction
> between version 1.0 and any higher version numbers.
> I think namespace naming is sufficient as a versioning mechanism.
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 02:54:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT