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

Re: title format

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:49:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030320.064956.78835492.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: title format (was Re: comments on Overview and Guide)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:53:40 -0800

> 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

The problem here is that the W3C style guide is not very helpful because
OWL is not an acronym.   We thus have the choice of making it look like an
acronym by titling our documents 
	Web Ontology Language (OWL) ...
or make it look like a proper name by titling our documents 
	[The] OWL Web Ontology Language ...

The former course will lead to questions about why we have misspelled an
acronym.  The latter course deviates (a bit) from the recommended titling.

I do agree that we do not really need to spend telecon time on this.  I'm
even quite happy to have the chair(s) propose a naming scheme.  However, I
am not happy without a common naming scheme.  

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 06:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC