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.rdfReceived on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 07:01:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC