- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 14:16:07 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
OK. Please suggest an alternative. We'll need one. -Alan On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > Alan: > [[ > Shall we use "owl11"? > ]] > > Currently, I would vote against. > > Rationale: > > a) the charter is clear that there is a question: > [[ > it is up to the Working Group to decide whether the final name of > the extension will bear the name “OWL 1.1” or not, > ]] > since we have not considered this question, I would see it as > premature to hard code the answer into our document URLs > > See > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/51 > > > b) the versioning policy of W3C seems to me to argue against the > appropriateness of a 1.1 label: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions > [[ > However, one common expectation when using the major/minor version > scheme is that, for a given major version number, the > Recommendation with the highest minor version number supersedes all > others sharing that major version number. By supersede, we mean > that authors and implementers should stop using the old version and > start using the new version; in effect the new version masks the > old one. The status section of a minor version should state clearly > that it supersedes the previous minor version. > ]] > > I do not believe there will be community consensus that OWL 1.1 > should mask OWL 1.0, hence OWL 1.1 seems an inappropriate name for > a recommendation that evolves from the member submission. > > Jeremy > > >
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 18:16:26 UTC