- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:11:43 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I agree with this. I believe that having a citable entry point with the whole WG as authors/editors was one of the reasons we decided to make Overview be a (rec track) document rather than a web page. The alternative is to have random and/or inappropriate citing of OWL 2 documents. No doubt it isn't possible to completely avoid this, but we can at least try. Ian On 14 Apr 2009, at 01:01, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On 13 Apr 2009, at 21:11, Michael Schneider wrote: >> [snip] >>> * The cited reference "[OWL2]" points to the Primer. I believe the >>> Document Overview is the best document to generically refer to >>> OWL 2. >> [snip] >> >> Really? That seems unfortunate. >> >> Or is that a design goal for Overview? > > FWIW, I understood it to be, and said and heard words to that > effect at > the meeting where we approved the concept (2009-02-23), but alas, I > don't see them recorded in the minutes. > > That was, in my mind, the main reason to go out of our way to not have > editors named, since whoever is named on that document would be widely > cited for "OWL 2". Of course when people have reason to cite a > particular document, they will, but when the just need a pointer to > all > of OWL 2, I would expect/assume/hope they would use Overview. > > -- Sandro >
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:31:04 UTC