W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: review of Document Overview

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:27:59 +0100
Message-Id: <B9673328-0238-4F12-8FFE-5894BD4435FB@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
On 3 Apr 2009, at 14:20, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On 2 Apr 2009, at 13:38, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> Remove Figure 2, as it serves no useful purpose.
>> I'm tempted to bet folks a drink that we'll get complaints about
>> removing it, but whatever....
> I'm baffled as to what purpose you think this figure serves and why  
> its loss will be mourned.

I'll do a little happy dance on its grave.

> AFAICT, the information content of the figure is:
> * Full > DL > RL,QL,EL
> * RL, QL and EL have a non-empty intersection

At some point, we need to be more secure. We've made these  
relationships more sane, which is the *key thing*. We don't need to  
explain them to death. Leave something for the freelance writers!

>> Am I the only one who thinks OWL 1 users will want to know, in no
>> uncertain terms, whether OWL 2 breaks their stuff, BEFORE they accept
>> OWL 2?

I don't even know what this means.

Plenty of people who think they are using OWL 1 have been using OWL  
1.1 tools for years. And for many months, they've been using OWL 2  
tools. As things have been changing even!

Let's not buy into the puerile confusion and FUD that have been  
pretty constant since before the first OWLED workshop. Point of fact:  
Migrating from OWL 1 to OWL 2 is piss easy for almost everyone with a  
lot of benefits. And you can do it without wading through a bunch of  
explanations, for the most part.

Seriously. Download protege4.

Worries about adoption and market confusion have been *seriously*  
overstated. Worries about sufficient documentation have also been  
seriously overstated. Similarly on how much support the transition  

> This is *exactly* what I am trying to achieve here.
>> Figuring that out by sifting through our entire spec seems a bit
>> much to ask.
> That isn't the intention. The intention is to tell them that  
> everything is fine, *which it is*. I


When I moved from XSLT 1 to XSLT 2, I certainly didn't give a flying  
fuck about the differences bit...and I'm a spec geek!

I just used the new document and new tools and was fine.

> MHO this message, we should *not* provide irrelevant information  
> about the corner cases and "bug-fixes" in OWL 2 that prevent us  
> from simply saying that it is *completely* backwards compatible  
> with OWL 1 -- this does need to be documented somewhere, but not  
> here (not sure if it should be normative and/or in NF&R, but this  
> is a different issue that I will address in another email).

Actually, I don't think this matters either. Tool builders need to  
know this, but they should read the specs anyway. If this is a real  
problem, it'll show up *mighty* quickly and documentation and  
migration tools will emerge.

Why do we think OWL users are so much more fragile than the rest of  
the world? They aren't even (in total --- I'm not sure about per  
capita) whinier.

Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 15:41:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC