- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:50:27 +0100
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 7 Apr 2008, at 17:27, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote: > i like the idea of the technology buttons for being able to see a > more detailed view of the issues that will make sense for the owl 1 > users. > I believe though that everyone should know that owl 2 builds on owl > 1 so i believe something about this as an update to owl 1 should > stay in the intro. This doesn't seem to scale. That is, I don't see why we wouldn't then also acknowledge that it builds on DAML+OIL. In the guide, these are all in an appendix anyway: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#AppendixB > thus i would propose doing as you suggest with the technology > buttons for the owl 1 perspective > but leaving something like what was in the intro as acknowledgment > of owl intellectual history. this could mention the expanded > section that is coming later Looking at some other W3C specs (e.g., XSLT) things like DSSSL (the prior version) are just listed as references: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#section-Other-References And removed entirely in XSLT2: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/ Though in the abstract: XSLT 2.0 is a revised version of the XSLT 1.0 Recommendation [XSLT 1.0] published on 16 November 1999. And there's: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#introduction Though these are of the spec. The WSDL 2.0 primer doesn't have any such stuff about WSDL 1.1 upfront (though WSDL 1.1 was very widely used). So, I'm unsure. Given that the abstract already mentions that OWL 2 extends OWL 1 and we'll have a section on it, does it help readers to also get it in the intro? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 16:48:39 UTC