Re: Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of "unification")

Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>
>> - I do not want to reopen the profile naming discussion too much, but:-(
>> Is it necessary to add the '2' to all profiles? I would have thought
>> that 'OWL QL', 'OWL RL', etc, would be o.k. It would also make the rule
>> representation a bit shorter: 'OWL RL/RDF' instead of 'OWL 2 RL/RDF'
> 
> This would be fine for me -- there is no confusion because OWL 1 didn't
> have these profiles. If others agree, then changing the document is a
> trivial task.
> 

On a slightly related note, but again editorial: afaik we agreed to
deprecate OWL Lite. The text still refers to it at the beginning, but it
does not really reflect this deprecation. I wonder whether this is
something we should explicitly address in the profile document.

Ivan



> Ian
> 
> 
>>
>> I guess that is for the moment after a first read through the text...
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>>
>>> We (Alan and I) agreed that it would help to clarify this issue and to
>>> inform our discussion on Wednesday if the Profiles document [1] were
>>> updated to reflect the proposed "unification". This has now been done.
>>> It should be read in conjunction with the (draft) conformance
>>> definitions [2].
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 

-- 

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

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 07:01:21 UTC